Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T19:30:45Z

JHanson: /* Reply to the Above */

==Dark Ages==

I have to ask: does this really qualify as a "mystery?" Most people who have actually taken the time to study European history, I would suggest, would say that there's a clear and simple answer: "No, the so-called "Dark Ages" weren't really so backwards." Significant advances were made during the period generally termed the "Dark Ages" in many fields: music, agriculture, metallurgy, and philosophy spring to mind immediately. Historians today generally avoid using the term "Dark Ages" for precisely that reason.

Should it really be termed a "mystery" just because some people continue to hold misconceptions about it? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:11, 28 December 2008 (EST)
: Yes, it's not a mystery at all. Renaissance humanists hated the "dark ages" with a passion. Now we know just how much science and culture were developed during those centuries. Not so much a mystery as a myth, really (liberals love to claim early Christian Europe was fruitless) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 14:14, 28 December 2008 (EST)

::Perhaps a better question would be "Why are the advances of the early Middle Ages frequently overlooked or dismissed?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:19, 28 December 2008 (EST)

:::My question is: ''What specific non-warfare scientific/technological advances were made in Christian Western Europe between the fall of Rome and AD1000?'' [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:36, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::There were some important scholars, notably Isidore of Seville (6th century Spain), Bede (7th century England) and Alcuin of York (8th century England). But, with these possible exceptions, European scholarship is overshadowed by India, China and the Muslim Caliphate in this period. The first European renaissance started when Christian scholars visited Spain and Sicily to benefit from Arab learning.

::::However, the so-called Dark Ages weren't nearly as obscure are the name suggests. There was significant trade with Byzantium and the Caliphate and the most important monasteries had access to classical Latin texts. There were major building projects, especially of monasteries, particularly from the late 8th century onwards. The standard of craftsmanship was exceptional - you couldn't say it declined at all during the "Dark Ages". Witness the jewelry at Sutton Hoo or the illustrated manuscripts produced by Anglo-Saxon scriptoria. The Anglo-Saxon kings, notably Alfred, Athelstan and Edgar, laid the basis of English government which was formalised by the coronation oath of Henry I.

::::Bear in mind that the setback to civilisation was only in Western Europe. Culture flourished in the Eastern Empire, also in the Arab Caliphate, while the Tang and Song Dynasties represent in many ways the peak of Chinese culture. Also, much of the foundations of mathematics were discovered in India in this period. Universities were first founded in Arab lands (Fez was the first, I think) in the 10th century, before spreading to Spain and thence to Christian Europe. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::The operative words in my question above were ''scientific/technological''. I know of Bede and Alcuin and have had occasion to look into Isadore in the last few months. Yes they were scholars, and they shine like beacons. I am also aware of the "Benedictine reformation" and the wonders done by St. Dunstan. But these are beacons in the gloom. Was it Dunstan who had the Benedictine rules translated into "English" because Latin had been largely forgotten? And I love the jewellery of that age. I have had occasion to read much of the [[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]] a number of times last year...and it really was a dark and dangerous age. Only Christianity kept western society together (and I know of no historian that denies the good the Church did in those times) but as for science and technological advances, really there was very little, if any at all.
In another context the age is also called ''the great interruption''. Cheers [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::::Science and technology: almost nothing, I think. The great advances in science during the so-called Dark Ages were in India and the Muslim countries. The West only started to turn the corner in terms of scientific learning when Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II) visited the Muslim universities in Spain, c.1000 (see R.W. Southern, ''The Making of the Middle Ages''). [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 17:59, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:Yes! Now all we have to do is get people to agree to it on [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]] item (10) under "Specific truths that history books deny".[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 18:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

==Humor==
Perhaps this entry could be clarified: is there a particular form of humor that the author had in mind? There are examples of jokes, riddles, puns, comic figurines/images, anthropoligical notes of humorous conversations, etc. from both pre-Christian times and from post-Christian 'first contacts' with cultures that had had no previous exposure to Christianity.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:Brossa: Can you provide some? --[[User:AbnerY|AbnerY]] 21:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

:I'd like to see Brossa's alleged examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

::How about Greek and Roman comedy? that way predated Christianity. Andy, what kind of claim are you making here? on what basis would you allege that humor does not predate Christianity? it seems pretty far-fetched. I'd like to see some evidence. --[[User:DaveClark|DaveClark]]

::: You misunderstand what a Greek "comedy" was. It was not a humorous performance as meant by the term today (after the onset of Christianity).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Yes. It was. The intention was to make people laugh. Otherwise, what on earth do you mean by "humor"? Also.. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7536918.stm [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 09:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Aschlafly is right in saying that the term "comedy" did not mean exactly what it does today, but KimSell is right that the works of playwrights such as Aristophanes certainly included humorous elements such as wordplay, farce and grotesque exaggeration (often surprisingly coarse by our standards). I'd also cite the episode where the children mocked Elisha in 2 Kings 2:23-24 as an example, albeit fairly base, of pre-Christian humor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: As a side-note, in the past there have been bitter disputes where people have taken the polar opposite position to Mr Schlafly, ie that all humor is un-Christian. This is touched on in Umberto Eco's ''The Name of the Rose'', which I recommend.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:21, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: The pre-Christian examples don't withstand scrutiny. Mockery or crude comments are not quality humor, and may not be humor at all.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:23, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::::::Sorry Mr. Schlafly. While you may not consider crude comments humorous, it is still defined as humor. you are yet to back up the claim you're making with any specific evidense. even if greek comedy didn't qualify as humor (and it does) there would still be no evidence that the advent of christianity brought the advent of humor.

::::This will be easier if you define precisely what ''you'' mean by 'humor' or 'comedy' so that we can determine if in fact it did or did not exist before Christianity. As the essay stands now, it implies that there was no ''humor'' before Christianity, not that, say, stand-up comedy as practiced in the United States today did not exist in the ancient world. The Greek comedy tradition was well-established by the sixth century BC and contains aspects of sexual farce, parody of 'serious' literary styles, and mockery of specific political and public figures. Comic performers wore characteristic costumes that included fat suits, huge genitalia, and grotesque masks that are still in use in modern comic performances. Greek vases depict these comic characters engaged in antics; I recall in particular a vase depicting two grotesque dwarves helping a third dwarf up a ladder or ramp - Three Stooges level humor.
::::Isaac in the Bible got his name from the laughter of Abraham and Sarah; does this not indicate a sense of humor? Elijah mocks the prophets of Baal, including the suggestion that Baal cannot hear his priests because he is on the toilet.
::::Egyptian papyri show exaggerated caricatures of dishevelled older men engaged in sexual relations with young women, including humorous captions (in heiroglyphics!) detailing the women's commentary on the situation. Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity. A foreign queen is depicted as being so fat that she stands next to an ass with the caption 'the ass needed to carry the queen'.
::::Sumerian scatological humor is recorded (in cuneiform) on a tablet dated to 1900 BC.
::::Many Native American groups had oral traditions that include the 'Trickster' figure, who gets involved in humorous scrapes and mocks authority figures. Many of these stories also include punning wordplay and practical jokes; another dimension of humor.
::::Nineteenth century Australian ethnographers, coming into first contact with an isolated Aboriginal group, noted that the Aboriginals told stories among themselves and laughed during an otherwise stressful time - in this case, a terrible thunderstorm.
::::I'm sure that others could contribute examples from Sanskrit or Asian cultures.
::::So scatological humor, sexual humor, puns, riddles, slapstick, political satire, parody of 'serious' art forms, practical jokes, and others are all documented in pre-Christian or non-Christian cultures.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 09:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: To one with an open mind, your vulgar "examples" tend to reinforce the basic observation: (real) humor was lacking before Christianity. Crudeness or vulgarity or mockery is not true humor, and Greek "comedies" were not attempts at humor in today's sense.

::::: If you had evidence of writings about humor itself, or books of humor, or truly comedic performances, or anything remotely similar to quality humor today, then that could help your argument. But the above examples, if they are the best you have, simply underscore the insight in this essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: It would have been simpler for you to have simply started with the statement that no 'true humor' existed before Christianity, so that we would have known what sort of Scotsman we were dealing with in the first place. At any rate, the Japanese had [http://www.conservapedia.com/Noh_theater#What_is_Ky.C5.8Dgen.3F mature forms of theater] designed to "draw rich laughter from the audience" before Christianity was introduced to Japan.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:02, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Have you ever watched an ancient Greek comedy? Because I have, and in parts, they are downright hilarious. As people keep saying, you have not explained what you mean by "humor" and so, this conversation would seem to be pointless. However, Aristotle speaks of the history of Greek comedy, including the fact that it was funny! [[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:39, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: May I ask what is the earliest example of true humor that you know of? While I respect the viewpoint that the above examples are not real humor, I don't know of any new form that emerged very soon after the establishment of Christianity.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:30, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you are so adament about so called "genuine humor" mr. Schlafly, then please define it for us.

::::::::Clearly there is a distinction to be made between things that are funny and things that are 'humor'. If it was intended to make people laugh, it qualifies as humor, whether it was funny or not. No doubt plenty of movies made by the Zuckers and the Farrelly brothers aren't funny, but they're still comedies. I don't find Groucho Marx very funny but he still counts as a comedian. What you seem to mean is that you don't find pre-Christian humor amusing. That's fine but it hardly counts as one of the 'greatest mysteries of world history'.[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 12:09, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: I agree with Mr Achalfly in that for something to be humorous it needs to have a certain amount of taste and refinement. For example, the article mentions a man getting hit in the crotch by a ball. While some people may find this funny, I daresay there are very few people in the world whi would call this humor. The article also mentions the Jackass movie; again, while a few people may find it amusing, I doubt very many people would define it as humorous. What do these two examples have in common? A lack of taste and refinement. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::Surely someone with an open mind would find such taste and refinement in ancient Greco-Roman political satire (e.g. from Aristophanes). Humor undeniably existed before Christianity. Let's just put this behind us as a misunderstanding (or even a disagreement over personal preference). [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EST)

For the elucidation of all: "''The Oxford Companion to Classical Literature''" describes Aristophanes as an "Athenian comic poet". Eleven of his plays survive. I know of at least one that has been performed in modern times - "''The Wasps''". I have a CD of it (2 CD set actually) Originally, it was produced in 422 B.C. and is a satirical comedy, poking fun at the Athenian jury system of the time and the state of contemporary politics. It is a comedy of manners, with elements of parody, occasional crudity and slapstick. Sounds like the Restoration writers to me. Or Voltaire. Even Shakespeare indulged in a bit of crudity at times. Modern productions, of course, update some of the scenes.

Aristophanes, who is still read and studied, is only one of many writers of comedies in those times. There was an annual competition for comedy. (''The Wasps'' came 2nd in its year.) Aristophanes' style has been copied by classically trained playwrights since...the Frenchman, Racine, for instance.

The above Oxford Companion devotes over 3 tightly printed pages to ancient Greek and Roman comedy, as well as many mentioned writers getting their own articles. Perhaps we today would not find as funny, but scenes in Shakespeare that had them rolling around in the aisles in 1600 do not quite have that power today. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:remove indent) ETundel, you are confusing "I find it funny" with "it is intended as Humor." I don't find Jackass funny myself, but it is still considered humour. It may be very low comedy, which it is and not everyone will like it, but the fact remains that something does not cease to be "humour" just because X amount of people don't find it funny. [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 16:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

The above discussion is interesting, and I'd like to learn more about "The Wasps." But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary: the "ludicrous" or (more importantly) the "absurdly incongruous."

There are dim-witted people who are amused by compulsive profanity or, as on this site, by mindless vandalism. Parody and sarcasm is also immensely entertaining to the easily amused. But this is not "humor" as defined by the dictionary, and I still haven't seen any compelling examples of pre-Christian humor. A performance like "Trading Places" would qualify, but it didn't exist.

It's interesting how strenuously some people object to the proposition that humor did not predate Christianity. Surely your minds are not so closed as to think the proposition to be automatically impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Here you go Andy, here is the full text of "The Wasps" for you to read at your leisure here[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/wasps.html]. You can judge for yourself if you find it humorous. Honestly, I'm surprised that you're surprised; you throw out a proposition that runs counter to even the most basic understanding of behavior and psychology, basically saying that before Christ nobody knew how to be genuinely funny, and are surprised when people question that? Having an open mind doesn't mean you accept everything to be true. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 18:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::(EC)"But certainly much of the above, such as vulgarity, is not "humor" as defined primarily by the dictionary"
::Presumably if ANY of the above is humor as defined by the dictionary, then there was humor that pre-dated Christianity. If Aristophanes wrote a political satire ("a satirical comedy, poking fun ... at the state of contemporary politics"), would that not make it a humorous piece of work by any normal definition?[[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 18:28, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: ShawnJ and Sam99foster, please answer my question: are you saying that you believe the proposition to be automatically impossible??? It sure sounds that way from some of the closed-minded postings above. Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:42, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:::: No Andy, I don't find it automatically impossible, I find it impossible after brief consideration. That means I gave your question thought, and found its position to be ludicrous. The question infers that somehow, before Christ, humans did not have access to the full range of their emotions. You can argue over how humor, like ethics and morality, have changed over the years, but it doesn't stop them from existing. Rejecting the notion that humor didn't exist before Christ is not an example of closed-mindedness any more than rejecting the notion that 2+2=76 is. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:22, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Andy, why do you assume that we're automatically dismissing the notion? We are using historical facts and examples which you yourself seem to be dismissing out of hand without giving them any thought. Case in point, your two line rebuttal to a whole list of examples on the grounds that they are all "vulgar." Well, what's vulgar about this? "Other examples of Egyptian pictorial humor include depictions of animals engaged in human activities - like cats herding geese and goats and lions playing board games - juxtaposed with humans engaged in animal activity." Nothing sexual, crude, or otherwise off-color here, just a '''ludicrous''' and '''absurdly incongruous''' situation that could only be intended as humorous, and yet you, without apparently even reading what the user posted, flippantly dismiss it for some reason unbeknownst to the rest of us.

::::: Now, although you are somewhat correct in saying that comedy did not mean the same thing to the ancient Greeks that it does to a modern audience, you blindly overlook two other important points. First, that ancient definition of comedy--or a version of it (Boethian, to be exact)--lasted long past the birth of Christianity. Dante and Shakespeare both wrote their comedies under this ancient definition, which is why something like the The Divine Comedy is called, well, a comedy, despite the fact that the first third of it details brutal torture and punishment without any humor whatsoever, or at least none that I can recall off the top of my head. In essence, to credit Christianity with the rise of modern "comedy" simply because of the history of that word and the genre it represents misses the mark by at least 1500-1600 years.

::::: More importantly, you ignore the fact that Greeks also had a third dramatic form, the satyr play (from which we derive the English word "satire"), which was very close to what we mean by modern comedy. Fewer of these have survived, but the express purpose of these plays was to generate laughter, which is why they were named after satyrs, who were presumed to be pranksters in Greek myth. Very often, these plays simply relied on ludicrous and absurd situations to get the audience laughing. Often these were crude, yes, but not exclusively so.

::::: We aren't automatically dismissing the idea. We're dismissing the idea because it is objectively wrong and every single shred of evidence indicates the exact opposite, even when working within your incredibly limited definition of "humor." --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:10, 12 February 2009 (EST)

Sir, since you say parody is not humor, is [[Essay:Born_Outside_the_U.S.A.!|this]], therefore, not funny?

[[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 19:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Do you often speak in non sequiturs?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: How is that a non-sequitur? You argue that parody and satire are not humor, so I point you to something that you presumably wrote as a humorous piece. You certainly didn't reject the accolades that termed it funny.

::: You argue, ''"Note, by the way, that satire is not "humor" per its primary dictionary definition."'' What dictionary are you using? [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humor According to Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary], this is the definition of humor in the context with which we are concerned (the others definitions concern the dated usage referring to the human body):

* that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous
* something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

Parody and satire seem to fit both the first and third. If you disagree, please explain why.

So, what is your definition? You've not provided one yet; you've merely said "humor is not (fill in the blank)".

I view humor as a gift from God. It allows us to get through our most troubling times. The idea that humor only existed after Christ is as alien to me as the idea that romantic love only existed after Christ. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:19, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::: I apologize to Mr. Schlafly in that I charged that he had not provided a definition of humor -- he had, and it was, embarrassingly enough, the same one I cited. This topic has become long, and I missed his definition.

::: However, I still ask this: how do parody and satire '''''not''''' fit that definition?

::: Mr. Schlafly also cites the film ''Trading Places'' as an example of humor. Well, Eddie Murphy was never one of my favorites, since, particularly during the time he made that movie, he was extraordinarily foul-mouthed. But... as I understand it, plot of the movie is two people from different worlds trade lives, and we see how they both handle it, or fail to do so.

::: That strikes me as something that has to be one of the oldest jokes imaginable -- laughing at the "fish out of water" concept. I can easily imagine two Egyptian peasants, toiling down in the Nile Delta, lightening their day by laughing at the thought of the Pharaoh having to do their jobs for a while. "He'd be worried about getting his robes dirty!" "He probably couldn't even fill ten bushels of reeds!" (Of course, "ten bushels of reeds" isn't funny to us, but it might be hilarious to the guy who could pick thirty bushels before a lunch break.)

::: Now, admittedly, I'm speculating, but so is Mr. Schlafly. And I think my speculation is quite reasonable -- ancient people laughing at a concept we still find funny. He, by contrast, apparently imagines humanity consisted of a collection of dour sourpusses and/or vulgarians who couldn't appreciate anything beyond a flatulence joke until somewhere between 1 and 30 AD.

::: He also charges those of us who don't see his viewpoint of being close-minded. Sorry, no -- it is not close-minded to expect extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim. If I said, "perhaps, until Christ was born, the sky was green and the grass was blue", you'd be justified in taking that with a huge grain of salt -- particularly if you presented me with some evidence that, in 200 BC, the sky was blue and the grass was green, and I responded with "well, that's not really ''blue'' and ''green'', that's ''cobalt'' and ''emerald''." [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:47, 10 February 2009 (EST)

I'm new here but I don't understand this one. What has Christianity got to do with humour? In any case, the answer is "yes" - as contributors above suggest, go and read (or even better, watch) Aristophanes. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::Whilst shopping just now I nicked into my local newsagency-cum-bookshop. There were Penguin Classics editions on the shelf of Aristophanes' ''Frogs'', ''The Birds'', ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. This not a big shop....so it seems old Aristophanes is alive and kicking, if only as part of a subject at university. (I must admit that I only have the ''Wasps'' CDs because of the wonderful RVW incidental music written for a Cambridge Uni dramatic society performance in 1909, but it shows that he is not completely out of date and that his wit can be applied to modern circumstance.) The word ''wit'' is what I keep coming across regards his plays.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:40, 9 February 2009 (EST)

==="Ancient humor"===
One thing I think many of Mr. Schlafay's detractors are overlooking is the possibility that the works we refer to as "comedies" today might not have been intended as comedies in their own time. The word "[[comedy]]" is English (as are all the other words used to describe Aristophanes' work: [[joke]], [[humor]], etc.), so we are in effect relying on modern translators of Ancient Greek to tell us what the Ancient Greeks thought about their own literary works.

The other day I was looking out my [[window]] and saw two [[squirrel]]s chasing each other up and down a [[tree]] trunk. Suddenly the lead squirrel stopped and turned around so suddenly that the other squirrel bumped into its head and fell off the tree! (It was only six feet or so off the ground, so the squirrel was unharmed.) I laughed at this funny occurrence — but of course the two squirrels weren't ''trying'' to put on a funny show for me; they were just doing what comes naturally to animals. Perhaps when we look into our history books and see the funny things that were done by Aristophanes, we should keep these two squirrels in mind. I think Mr. Schlafay was speaking particularly about the ''conscious'' exercise of humor — the ''intention'' to do funny things, not simply the ''fact'' of having done funny things. Nobody can seriously argue that nothing funny ever happened in antiquity... but ''why'' did it happen? that's the question. --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 21:48, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: That's an excellent point. Some of the ancient vulgarity, for example, was probably not intended to be "funny" any more than compulsive profanity today is intended to be funny. Someone 1000 years from now may look at dialog between two public school students today as being absolutely hilarious, even though the students are not trying to be funny now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:24, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:: The City Dionysia, which is the festival where these plays were preformed had several highly established conventions, including that four plays were to be preformed by each group: three tragedies and then a comedy. Comedies by nature are funny. While vulgar humor was indeed used, they still fit the definition of comedy ("a drama of light and amusing character and typically with a happy ending" according to Merriam-Webster). Whether people find them funny is up to them (I happen to like Scrubs, while my brother despises the show. However, he likes Family Guy, which I dislike). But the original intent of the comedies was to make people laugh, which qualifies it as humor [[User:ENorman|ENorman]] 22:45, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::That's very clever thinking, Garth. Fortunately, we have contemporary reviews of the work of authors like Aristophanes, which described them as being humorous (or in some cases not humorous enough!).
::I suspect that this debate might be in order to get people thinking outside the box while at the same time testing their composure. Of course, humor could have not predated Christianity and of course, that is not the case. But how are you going to react when someone doggedly pursues the contrary? How are you going to react when someone refuses to define their terms or moves the goalpost or shifts ground? Will you calmly research and respond? Or will you resort to liberal deceit and condescend to them. Not only should you survey the responses you see here, you should also be doing research of your own before you form your conclusions.
::If you do your research, you will probably find the evidence for pre-Christian humor that you find compelling. Either way, come back here and attempt to argue your point. Remember to stay calm, approachable and accommodating. I urge you to engage in this exercise and wish you the best. [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 22:53, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Garth, there were no "''funny things done by Aristophanes''" any more than there were ''funny things done by'' humorous writers of modern times. He wrote plays, in verse, using the formal dramatic restraints of his day. In 5th century Athens there were two distinct forms of stage performances. There were the Tragedies, the most famed writers of which are Euripides and Aeschylus; and the Comedies, represented today by our mate Aristophanes. Never the twain did meet. They probably both developed out of pre-Classical Dionysian ritual, but by Classical times they were distinct from each other. Unlike the tragedians, Aristophanes set out to make people laugh; and to do this he used many of the forms used today - funny or fantastical situations, plays on words, ridicule of people in power, etc., He is supposed to have been very witty. He had a way with words. He was also a serious man who was concerned at perceived faults in the society he lived in, and used humor as a weapon against these things. He is recorded as saying "comedy knows what is right." He brought the powerful down a peg or two. My "Dictionary of Greek Civilisation", a book set for university courses during the 1970s, called him "a comic genius". [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafay: Thank you. ENorman and "Fundie": It sounds like you are resorting to [[appeal to authority]] in this case. Remember that we do not actually have "contemporary reviews" of Aristophanes; what we have are ''modern translations'' of those works. I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review. "Fundie", I'm glad we agree about the value of exercise. AlanE: If Aristophanes never did anything funny, then in what sense was he a comedian? You describe him as a "serious man" who "ridicule[d] people in power"; this Aristophanes sounds like something of a [[liberal]] [[radical]]! :) --[[User:GarthA|GarthA]] 23:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:Who were the "liberals" - those in power or Aristophanes? Let's not bring today's concepts into describing someone who lived 2500years ago. He was not a comedian any more than Jonathan Swift was when he used ''Gulliver's Travels'' to lampoon the foibles of his age. Have you read him? The use of comedy to prick the inflated egos of the powerful, whether they be politicians, judges, or whatever, has a long and noble history, both for those on the left and on the right. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:49, 9 February 2009 (EST)

:: This is so ignorant it's just adorable:

:: <blockquote>"I'm not even sure we would be justified in calling them "reviews", as you did, since I doubt the Ancient Greeks had anything like the modern conception of a film review or book review."</blockquote>

:: What in the wide wide world of sports do you think Aristotle's ''Poetics'' was? --[[User:JakeLa|Jake Lassiter]] 10:33 12 February 2009

:Remember to do a little research! The first line of Aristophanes' ''[http://classics.mit.edu/Aristophanes/frogs.html The Frogs]'':
::<blockquote>XANTHIAS: Shall I crack any of those old jokes, master, At which the audience never fail to laugh?</blockquote>
:I'm almost positive there is some implication of humor somewhere in there! Form your own conclusions! [[User:FundieMath|FundieMath]] 23:32, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:::Well done, Fundie! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)
::::Having read this controversy with interest, I am forced to agree with Mr Schalfly. There is a difference between the theatre of cruelty - sarcasm and cruel raillery - that was the hallmark of the pagan Greeks, and true humour, which to be effective needs access to the depths of ones heart and soul, a perspective that only became real through the incarnation and suffering of Christ. Similarly, the coarseness of peasant nonsense such as was available to primitive peoples - the ancient equivalent of gurning through horse collars - has no right to be defined as humour. What Mr Schlafly is attempting to describe (albeit to a deliberately unreceptive audience) is something wiser, something altogether more refined and insightful. I wish him luck in persuading the unpersuadable. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 14:25, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::::Hi and welcome to CP, Regal! I'm interested in your view of my quote from ''The Frogs'' (above) in light of CP's definition of [[Humor]]:

:::::<blockquote>Humor is an act, statement, or other form of communication done to invoke laughter, amusement, or happiness in the audience.</blockquote>

:::::If you agree that Xanthias intended to invoke laughter by cracking jokes and continue to believe that this is not humor, please explain how you would like to see our definition of 'humor' changed. [[User:MattL|MattL]] 14:41, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::::::And G'day from me, Regal. Can you tell us what dictionary you use? All of mine say more or less the same things. What is refined humour,? Wise humour. Insightful humour. Can we have examples? BTW, all the things you find detestable in so-called ''pagan'' humour is found unabated in Chaucer and the ''Decamaron'' and the other medieval story-tellers. Shakespeare used it. Scatalogical humour was the rage through most of the reformation times and later. Mozart wrote scatalogical songs. The bedroom farce has always been popular - we had no senior churchmen refusing to go to ''The Marriage of Figaro''. The Greeks laughed at the dolt and so do we - hence the undying popularity of the Inspector Clouseau type character through history. Nothing changed. No one is denying that much pagan humour was coarse; but what I am saying is that it has never stopped being coarse, and I am also saying that before Christ there was humour of the kind that we find in Wodehouse or Wilde, and the one-liners of Groucho Marx or Dorothy Parker, which are clever because they manage to nail an aspect of the human condition in so few words. Aristophanes could do that.(Unlike I, who go on and on...:))[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:58, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::: It appears that discussing humor with [[atheists]] is a fool's errand because they, like the ancient Greeks, are unable (or refuse) to open their minds to what real humor is. I've defined it several times, as does the dictionary; it is something "ludicrous" or "absurdly incongruous." Vulgarities may amuse the simple-minded to no end, and so may slapstick comedy (which is all the "Frogs" is referencing in its opening line), but it's not humor.

::::::: We've learned something from this discussion. It's not just the pre-Christians who were without humor, but so are [[atheists]] today. It's unfortunate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:57, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::::"Ludicrous": amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity; causing laughter because of absurdity; broadly or extravagantly humorous, resembling farce. All of these definitions are fulfilled in the examples that have already been stated in this discussion. For that matter, they are all fulfilled by the image on [http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/gr/r/wine_bowl,_apulia.aspx this vase in the British Museum] from the fourth century BC.
::::::::::If your second paragraph is meant to imply that your whole premise behind claiming that there was no humor before Christianity was to poke fun of atheists - since only atheists are so humorless as to take such a ludicrous proposition seriously - then I am afraid that your Modest Proposal has been found lacking.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Now that we've established that humor is a post-Christian phenomenon, we would do well to explore it's origins within Christianity. Do you have early Christian examples? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:03, 10 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::: In regards to something ludicrous or absurdly incongruous, from Plutarch's ''The Comparison of Demosthenes and Cicero'':

:::::::::<blockquote>So also we are told that when Cicero, being consul, undertook the defence of Murena against Cato's prosecution, by way of bantering Cato, he made a long series of jokes upon the absurd paradoxes, as they are called, of the Stoic set; so that a loud laughter passing from the crowd to the judges, Cato, with a quiet smile, said to those that sat next him, "My friends, what an amusing consul we have."</blockquote> We can plainly see that this is absurd. Now for the incongruity - A paradox, as defined by MW, is "a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true". Incongruous, as defined by MW, describes "something inconsistent with itself". Could this possibly be an example of humor? [[User:MattL|MattL]] 17:11, 10 February 2009 (EST)

Merriam-Webster also says that humor is "something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing." Doesn't that describe Aristophanes? [[User:BenjaminC|BenjaminC]] 17:38, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:It seems that I go away an hour and suddenly I am "without humour" and an atheist,Andy. Why have you reverted to (a) being personal to someone whose sense of humour you know nothing about and who has based his arguments on basic well-documented scholarly texts in a generally polite manner and (b)decided on a definition of humour that is at odds with every dictionary and encyclopedia I can find? Whether I am a Methodist, atheist, Catholic or calathumpian has nothing to do with the my arguments which, like most of my words in this site, are based on a lifetime of reading the canon of western literature and about it. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:20, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::I don't know why Mr Schlafly should have to defend himself against such an intemperate passive-aggressive assault. And if, as you claim, you are an expert on the entire canon of western culture, I should expect to find you in concordance with his ideas. [[User:RegalBruin|RegalBruin]] 11:50, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I didn't say, nor mean to imply, I was "''an expert on the entire canon of western culture''", Regal. What I can say is that that I, especially in this case, is that I am basing my statements on books (you know...those old fashioned things with pages that people used to read and geriatrics like me still do - I own thousands of them and have read untold thousands more.) So if I talk about the humour in Chaucer or Shakespeare, or mention Voltaire, or Beaumarchais (who? he says), Regal, it's because I've been there, mate, and done that, and have the tee shirt. (Even if, half the time now I have forgotten where I've put it!) Now, I assume you are being silly, perhaps "parodical", in your final phrase, but I am not in the mood. Andrew Schafly might be able to turn off severe sciatica with a quick prayer, but I can't; so I want to take it out on people: and seeing its not yet dawn and the rest of the family is still fast asleep, that means you! So do me one favour...go and find one reference - just one - from a reputable reference source, that "humour" started with Christianity. (And while you are at it, try and help Andrew by finding a reference for the Chinese inventing bamboo.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:03, 11 February 2009 (EST)

::The assumption that anyone who disagrees with Mr. S must be an atheist is indeed a pretty flimsy deflecting tactic. The claim being debated is not quite as bizarre as saying that there was no epic poetry before Christ.
::I'll chime in re the claim that the pagans had only farcical, bawdy, dirty type humor. I'm only familiar with 2 Aristophanes plays, ''Lysistrata'' and ''The Clouds''. ''Lysistrata'' does have a bawdy premise - the women of Greece conspire to not go to bed with their husbands until they end their war - but the play's point was political, not sexual, and it spoke on a real contemporary topic (the Peloponessian War) and addressed leading politicians by name. ''Clouds'' is a purely intellectual satire, making fun of the sophists in general and Socrates in particular. (Soc. was not actually a sophist but was apparently identified with them.) There are also a few poop jokes thrown in there, but that's no different from a lot of intellectual comedy today: I think of ''Little Miss Sunshine,'' that had jokes about Proust and Nietzshe, but also jokes about the dirty old grandfather character.
::My favorite thing about ''Clouds'' is that the main butt of the jokes, Socrates, was ''actually there in the audience'' watching it. The intro to my copy says that at the performance, the mask for the Socrates actor was such a good caricature, they had Socrates himself stand up so the audience could applaud the mask maker. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 20:36, 10 February 2009 (EST)
:::A lot of this boils down to arguing definitions - a fruitless argument that could go on endlessly if we had nothing better to do. What does interest me is the idea of a new form of humor emerging during or after the life of Jesus. Does anyone have any examples of a first- or second-century shift towards more refined types of humor? Perhaps "What is the earliest example of genuine humor" could be added to the list of mysteries?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:47, 11 February 2009 (EST)
::::I don't know if this has been brought up, but it appears that Mr. Schlafly doesn't find the "crude" humour entertaining (nothing wrong with that, it'd not everybody's thing) but what about wordplay and the double negative? I sumbit my favorite passage from Homer's Odyssey: When captured by the Cyclops, Odysseus tells him that his name is "Nobody." Later, after they attack the Cyclops and blind him, he storms around his cave in a rage screaming "Nobody will not get out alive" a double negative, and then calls to his brothers that "Nobody has blinded me, Nobody has blinded me." The Cyclops thinks he is calling for help, but not understanding what he is actually saying, his brothers misunderstand him and stay away... This type of humour leads directly to the modern examples of Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?" routine, as well as the Chico and Groucho's constant back and forth in their movies "Chico:(looking at a Contract) What'sa this?" "Groucho: That's just the standard Sanity Clause" "Chico:You can't fool me, there ain't no Sanity Claus." [[User:StephenK|StephenK]] 12:15, 11 February 2009 (EST)

==Who was right - Catholics or Protestants?==

Can you explain what you mean by this question? It's a bit like asking - who is right, Christians of Buddhists? Do you mean, regarding Transubstantiation? Or do you mean celibacy? Or the infallibility of the Pope? Maybe you could phrase it a little more clearly? Finally, do you think it's helpful to the world to see the world like this? Doesn't every faith believe it's 'right'? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 17:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: Surely you don't think that just because different people hold different views that each think are right, truth therefore does not exist. If I told that some cultures believe that 2+2 equals infinity, and are convinced they are right, would that change your view that 2+2=4 and not infinity?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:50, 9 February 2009 (EST)

::Well, yes, I do? Despite my own faith, I cannot in all sincerity tell a Buddhist that their faith is nonsense - I simply don't believe that's a way to get along with the rest of the planet, the pursuit of which is, after all, is our bounden duty here on this Earth. My own faith (Catholicism) has experienced many controversies, and although I hold fast to my faith, I acknowledge that it is not without its flaws and appalling mistakes. Jesus taught us to "love thy neighbour", after all. But to return to the question at hand - "who is right, Catholics or Protestants?". As an Irish Catholic married to an Irish Protestant, I'm sure you'll understand there's a great deal of sensitivity over this issue on our Island. And I'm certainly not about to tell my partner that her beliefs are 'wrong'. But what 'right' are you referring to? [[User:TadghOB|TadghOB]] 19:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

To keep this conversation from devolving into an ideological argument, I thought I might try to clarify the original question: I interpret it as referring to the issues at the heart of the Protestant Reformation, namely the allegations of abuses of power within the Catholic Church, the selling of indulgences, the lack of reliance on Scripture, etc. Some of these are purely theological points, but I think historical discussion can bring light to the issue of whether or not the Protestants were justified in some of their more pragmatic claims. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:13, 9 February 2009 (EST)

: In reply to TadghOB, one thing about Jesus is indisputable: He did tell others they were wrong, and was very clear that He was divisive rather than uniting.

: In reply to Economist, there is the issue of how to deal with the problems, and what the subsequent centuries and today illustrate. I'm not yet taking a position on the question, but am pointing out how your list is incomplete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:25, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Why did Islam grow so rapidly? ==

Not sure there's a lot of mystery here. The rise of Islam is well documented in both Arab and Byzantine sources. The "mystery", if there is one, is how Mohammed managed to convert a sizeable number of followers in his lifetime and how they became organised into a small but effective military force. Thereafter, Islam spread for several reasons. Initially, it was confined to Arab soldiers and their families and was something of an elite religion. But the Arabs were generally welcomed by the common people in the Byzantine territories because they imposed lighter taxes, their military levies were less oppressive and they didn't cut people's heads off because they disagreed with the Emperor's theological opinions. The same factors are reflected in the decline of the Byzantine empire, to the benefit of the Arabs in West Asia and North Africa: excessive taxation, too many able-bodied men from wealthy families joining the priesthood to evade military service, and continuous demoralisation of the population through religious disputes. Added to that was the over-centralisation of power in the Byzantine Empire, with the result that when the Emperor was out of action, there were few men with both the authority and the competence to wield power effectively. Such was the situation at the decisive Battle of the Yarmouk, in what is now northern Jordan, when the Emperor Heraclius was ill and unable to take the field, resulting in a decisive victory for the Arabs.

Islam spread in the territories conquered by the Arabs for similar reasons to the spread of Christianity in Europe: local rulers ingratiating themselves with their overlord (the Arab Caliph in this case), the prestige of being part of the official religion, the apparent evidence that God must favour the Muslims because he enabled them to win battles, and lower taxation for Muslims.

It's much harder to understand why the Byzantine Empire lasted as long as it did. Also, why did the Arabs not conquer most of the West? The post-Roman kingdoms in the West seem to have been more organised and effective than historians gave them credit for until recently.

See e.g. John Julius Norwich's history of Byzantium (three volumes but extremely - even addictively - readable). Also 'The Formation of Christendom' by Judith Herrin, the standard modern work on the interplay of Church and State in the Byzantine Empire; she shows that the church wasn't always a negative influence, as Edward Gibbon supposed. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)
:In addition to Fred's information above, Islam burst out of Arabia at a time when both the Byzantines and the Persians were completely exhausted from fighting each other interminably. There is also talk of a plague epidemic that wasted the so-called civilised powers but had little effect in the sparcely populated Arabian desert. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 20:52, 9 February 2009 (EST)

== Romans ==

''Did the Romans recognize or understand the concept of "truth"?''

What reason do you have to think that they did not? We would surely disagree with any ancient people (not just the Romans) about whether certain ideas are true or false, but that would not mean that the people did not understand the ''concept'' of truth. What meaning do you think the word ''veritas'' had for the Romans?--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 07:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Literacy in Ancient Greece ==

I don't know what the literacy level is in the USA but let's guess at 98-99%. In ancient Greece, the people who were able to read were free, male city dwellers - and by no means all of them. Perhaps 1% of the population could read. Not sure why this one is on the list of mysteries, because it isn't one. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Decline and fall of the Roman Empire ==

This is at the other end of the spectrum - i.e. a truly unsolved problem which has been a rich subject for academic research and debate. Many books have been written about this subject so you need some kind of strategy to assemble a decent essay on the subject. I would say it's more accurate to write about the ''transformation'' of the Roman Empire, not its fall. The Eastern half of the Roman Empire as divided by Diocletian became the Eastern Roman Empire, governed from Constantinople. The Western half became a set of independent kingdoms ruled by Germanic tribes. The territory of both the Western and Eastern halves of the Empire on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, plus the Levant, became part of the Arab Caliphate. All these successor states relied heavily on Roman methods of administration and law. Arguably, the ''only'' part of the Empire that actually declined and fell, insofar as the lives of ordinary people were concerned, was England.

Some of the more important causes of the decline (transformation):
* Environmental degradation of farmland.
* The permanent state of civil war for over 50 years in the middle of the 3rd century.
* Over-centralisation of power in the hands of the emperors from the late 3rd century onwards, partly as a reaction to the instability of the 3rd century.
* Outsourcing - i.e. the replacement of Roman manpower in the army by German mercenaries.
* The sapping of the numbers of young men who could serve in the army, especially as officers, because ordination as a priest or even a deacon precluded military service.
* The decline in the tax base, because priests and monks didn't have to pay taxes.
* Population pressure as tribes (e.g. the Huns) were forced westward by the failure of farming in central Asia.
* The Great Plague of c.535, which may have been even more destructive than the Black Death.
* Interminable religious disputes diverted much of the empire's intellectual effort.
* As ever in history, chance. The Emperor Heraclius, possibly the greatest general of all Roman emperors, fell ill at a critical moment. The Arabs, on the other hand, were commanded by their greatest general, Khalid ibn al-Walid, and, against all expectations, won what is now called the Battle of the Yarmouk in 636.
[[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Did the Hebrews build the pyramids? ==

Almost certainly not. If you mean the Pyramids of Giza, including the Great Pyramid of Khufu, they were built in the 4th Dynasty (c.2500BC), about a millennium before Joseph. I don't know where the Hebrews were at that time, but it wasn't Egypt. The last of the significant pyramids in Egypt was built in the 12th Dynasty, c.1860BC, a good 200 years before Joseph.

According to the Bible, which should be considered semi-historical evidence, Joseph used a chariot but chariots didn't appear in Egypt till c.1650BC.

So: no, and not a mystery. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 19:52, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== How were the pyramids built? ==

This isn't known for sure but calling it a mystery rather demeans the excellent archaeological research on the subject. [http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html Here's a good, accessible article.] [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:00, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Origin of the name Jesus ==

Jesus, pronounced ''Dzheezus'' in English, is the Latin version of his name (pronounced ''Yaysoos''). In turn, that's the Latin spelling of the Greek version of his name (same pronounciation as in Latin). And that's the Hellenised version of the Hebrew name Yehoshua. Which, as it happens, has come into English by a more direct route as Joshua.

The only thing that might seem slightly curious here is the sound shift from ''Y'' to ''J'' at the beginning of the word. This came about because the letters ''I'' and ''J'' were used indiscriminantly by English printers in the late middle ages. By the time the letter J finally entered the English alphabet (early 17th century, I think), Latin words which the Romans spelt with a initial ''I'' (e.g. Iulius Caesar) had come to be spelt with an initial ''J'' in English (hence Julius Caesar). So then they acquired the pronounciation ''J'', as in the very common names James and John.

Again, I don't know why you call this a mystery. This is pretty well known and very easy to look up if you don't know it. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 20:11, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reply to the Above ==

Fred, thanks for your attempt to solve the mystery, but I've got news for you: your spelling is atrocious and you're absurdly wrong in claiming that literacy in the U.S. is 98% or 99%. It's nowhere near that high.

The liberals who are running [[public schools]], and whom you likely support, are producing millions of illiterates each year. And it's getting worse thanks to how you likely vote. I know, you don't think it's your fault, but someone is electing these people who are perpetrating illiteracy. Fortunately, some parents are waking up to the problem, even if voters aren't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:44, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

* Spelling: I wrote ''we'' instead of ''were'' at one point in the 'Decline and Fall' section but apart from that, you'll have to tell me what my spelling mistakes are because I don't see them.
* Why does anything I've written make you assume I'm a liberal?
* Your criticism of public schools is a 'straw man' argument. Scotland (where I live) has almost entirely public education and a very high literacy rate. Likewise the Scandinavian countries, Holland, etc. Maybe there's something wrong with public education in the USA but it's too simplistic just to blame any problems on the fact that schools are public ''per se''.
* So you'll have gathered I haven't voted for anyone who's perpetuated illiteracy in the USA.
* Even so, I don't believe literacy in the USA is as low as 1-2%, which is what it was in Ancient Greece.
* Finally, are you always so rude to contributors? I hope you don't behave like that to the schoolkids you tutor. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 07:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook concurs] with Mister Ferguson -- 99% literacy (defined as "age 15 and over can read and write"), both male and female, in the United States. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:35, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't believe everything the government says, obviously. Illiteracy is rampant in many public schools, and among millions of adults in the U.S.

::::Care to cite a source (like I did)? You merely say "millions of adults" -- well, there's 220 million adults in the United States. If 1% of them cannot read, that's 2.2 million -- in other words, "millions". I'll grant, 99% literacy seems high, especially if you're looking at functional literacy (that is, able to read and write well enough to function in society) versus ability to read and write at all (my five year old niece can read and write a smidge, but certainly not well enough to hold a job!), but you act as if half the population couldn't read anything more than the cutesy graphics on the front page of USA Today. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 10:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Fred, I'm surprised you think my reply was "rude", yet seem to have no problem with your own postings. As to spellings, "indiscriminantly"? "Pronounciation"? Please. Also, don't try to fool anyone into thinking you're not a liberal. We are a truthful resource here and we disclose our point of view up-front. Do likewise or find another site to rant on. Wikipedia likes people who hide their point of view. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: * Whoops! Tripped up on two of the trickier words in the English language. Maybe you'd better take a blue pencil to your own contributions - they're not exactly flawless either.
:::: * "Liberal" - please answer my question. What, exactly, is liberal about what I've written above?
:::: * You're very fond of accusing people of ranting, aren't you? I've seen you say that to other people. But stating the facts and arguing logically isn't ranting. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Can we focus on the facts, please? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] has brought up some interesting points - let's discuss those, rather than who is the better speller. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::This is the Fred Ferguson who claimed his spelling was immaculate, and when his errors were pointed out responded with a blase, "Oh, those are the two most difficult words in the English Language, so it doesn't really count", is it? the Fred Ferguson who thinks that ad homs are an adequate replacement for logical debate? I'm sure his points are very valid indeed! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 11:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::: And your point is...? I don't see the relevance of this to the facts of the discussion. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:12, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I dare say you don't. However, I have grave doubts about whether your 'fact'-mongering is carried out with the intention of helping to build up Conservapedia. Given the nature of these 'facts', and of your attitude, I suspect quite the opposite. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: LITERACY: I crunched some numbers. According to the CIA World Fact Book, the population of the US is 303,824,640. 20.1% of that is children 0-14 years,w ho are presumably still working on literacy. Leave them out and that gives 303,824,640*0.799 = 242,755,887 adults. Now if 99% of those are literate, how many are not? 242,755,887*0.01 = 2,427,559. Thus even if 99% of Americans are literate, there are still two and a half million American adults who are illiterate. So we can have BOTH millions of illiterate Americans AND 99% literacy. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::I found some interesting reading on literacy in the US in [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report]. I have not read it all (I have to get back to teaching and laundry and bread baking), but I think it will prove worthwhile for those interested in seriously discussing this topic. Note that it provides a more complex picture of literacy than just "literate" vs. "illiterate". I would be interested also in reading something about literacy in Ancient Greece. My layman's impression is that women and slaves were generally not taught to read, which, if accurate, would imply that there was significantly less literacy in Ancient Greece than in modern America, even if Mr Schlafly's perspective on US public schools & literacy is accurate. Has anyone found any information to the contrary? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: Info on literacy in ancient Greece:
::: [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'' (suggests literacy as we understand it was confined to "a very small elite")]
::: [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'' (suggests "advanced literacy" of 5%)]
::: Doesn't sound comparable to the modern USA! [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 10:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: FredFerguson, have you ever considered that some sources aren't trustworth and that some things (like literacy in Ancient Greece) can't be measured? It's all very well citing a book or article, but then you have to consider where the book writer or article writer got the information from - and in an unfortunately large number of cases it comes from the top of his head. How do they know what literacy levels were in Ancient Greece? As a Greek lay dying, did he say to his son "Now if you remember one thing, remember this, and pass it on to your children....the current literacy rate is 5%. Pass it on to antiquity!"? I doubt it. It is quite likely that the figures quoted in those articles are just plain lies, or taken from other sources which have lied. Just because you read it somewhere doesn't mean it's true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::I don't think that truth is one of his priorities. [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 12:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::Maybe, but it's undeniable that nowadays 'Professor' has become a deceptive title; people are too inclined to trust them and what they say based purely on their title, when in fact they should be subject to greater scrutiny. Too many people see a book or article by a 'Professor' and immediately believe it must be completely true. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::::::::Well, RaviS, who's being ''ad hominem'' now?! And ETrundel, simply because something can't be measured directly doesn't mean it can't be estimated. And the fact that one estimate has been made doesn't mean that that estimate can't be improved. But in general, people who've studied a subject seriously generally have a better idea of the actual facts than people who just dismiss out of hand any factual information they find uncomfortable.
::::::Can we move this discussion forward? Does anyone else have some '''information''' to contribute about any of the topics I've raised on this page? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
Is it even sensible to talk about the literacy rate in Ancient Greece as a whole? I believe that (for example) Athens and Sparta had very different societies, so could be expected to have different levels of literacy.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:CPalmer makes a very good point. And to FredFerguson, people are trying to contribute, but you keep arguing and trying to stop them. Also, do you really believe that so-called "Professors" are totally and utterly unfallible? Have you really been brainwashed into thinking that they are totally devoted to the truth and don't have their own agendas to push? Because believe me, many of them do. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::So books written by academics who are experts in the field don't count as trustworthy anymore? Compilations of population statistics written by a branch of the government aren't somewhat reliable either? Then what sources should we use? WND? Whatever we decide is the truth? And don't give me any of that "open your mind" rubbish - we need adequate sources or we're just making it up.
So can we accept that millions of Americans are illiterate, the literacy rate is 99%, and the literacy rate in Athens was high within a small elite, very low elsewhere? These seem to have been established in the discussion and I don't understand why there's dissent (certainly no contradictory sources have been provided.)[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Mr Ferguson's claim above that only men could read may be a good starting point. If we can find a reliable source to verify this, then we can say confidently that the literacy rate couldn't have been more than 50%.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:19, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::Given that one of the most famous ancient poets, Sappho, was a woman, Mr F may need to think again! [[User:RaviS|RaviS]] 13:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::Excellent point! Now we seem to be getting somewhere.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 13:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::On the other hand, reliable historical records place the number of Ancient Greek female poets as being minute, one of the reasons Sappho is famous is because she was a female poet at a time when poets were almost exclusively male. An example can be drawn with medieval Europe where, outside of the nobility, literacy was confined almost exclusively to men such as priests and the wealther merchants, but on rare occasion some women were taught literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:33, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::The reliable source you want is ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece'', cited above. Note that most poetry in the ancient world was oral, e.g. the epic poems ascribed to Homer may have been recited by bards for 500 years before they were eventually written down c.700BC. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::I'm not going to respond to the renewed jibes from RaviS and ETrundel. Let's talk about the facts. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 13:37, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::::::...he said, masterfully sidestepping their legitimate objections. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:46, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Mr. Ferguson has actually provided citations for his arguments. It is reasonable to dispute the accuracy of his citations, but it needs to be something more than "oh, a professor wrote those; people put far too much faith in that title." In other words, provide citations of your own, not hand-waving dismissal. [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 14:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

It appears to me that there really isn't a consistent answer to the question of the ancient Greeks. Spartan boys were taught to read and write, but they didn't really care for the skills so functionally they may have been illiterate still. The Athenians could definitely read - provided you happened to be male and somewhat well off. Literacy in the US is well higher because reading is a necessary function of socialization within our time. The ancient Greeks loved the arts, but they were more loved for their aesthetics than their functional qualities.

What is contestable about our high literacy rate? Millions still can't read, but that's because our population happens to be rather large. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:True enough. Instead of comparing actual literacy rates it might be more appropriate to compare how much access/opportunity people have or have had to learning literacy skills.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 14:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

TO SUM UP THUS FAR: So, the original mystery was ''How did the level of literacy in Ancient Greece compare with the United States now? '' So far, considering all the evidence offered above, the answer would be something like "While not all American adults are functionally literate, literacy in the US is much more widespread than that of Ancient Greece, and includes a broader range of the population. More people in the US have access to education than did in Ancient Greece; this is particularly true of women and the lower classes." References: [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html The CIA World Factbook], [http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf this report on literacy in the US], [http://www.historyliteracy.org/scripts/search_display.php?Article_ID=69 Book review of ''Literacy and Orality in Ancient Greece''], [http://people.uncw.edu/deagona/ancientnovel/leslie.htm An article on ''Literacy and the Ancient Novel'']. Does anyone have any other sources that might be significant? Is there an appropriate way to include this in the article? I'm not sure what the etiquette is about editing "mystery" pages. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[http://www.detlitcoal.org/faq.htm 47% of people in metro Detroit are functionally illiterate]. I doubt the rate of illiteracy was much higher in Athens in ancient Greece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
: It sounds as though the rate of functional literacy in ancient Greece was a very low percentage, 5% at most. The rate of literacy in Detroit doesn't sound great but (1) it's still a lot higher than ancient Greece, which was the original - if rather arcane - question and (2) how representative is Detroit of the USA as a whole? [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 15:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Your 5% figure is not credible. Socrates had a big following, and all of them could read and write. As someone pointed out, Spartans (not known to be as educated and Athenians) were taught to read and write. Moreover, democracy of Athens would not have originated without widespread literacy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:::So how did American democracy originate if the US was (and is) plagued by illiteracy? Also, Socrates had a following amongst the other elites. As was said, literacy was high amongst the elites, low everywhere else.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 15:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-03-09T17:18:36Z

JHanson: /* Reply to the Above */

Utilitarianism

2009-02-28T12:01:23Z

JHanson: /* Critiques of utilitarianism */

'''Utilitarianism''' is a political [[moral]] [[philosophy]] which calls for actions to be judged on their usefulness (or magnitude of reward) to society or select individuals.

Jeremy Bentham, one of utilitarianism's early proponents, called the process of determining the most useful possible action the hedonistic calculus. One would, according to Bentham, measure the pleasure of certain actions against the pleasure of other actions. The problems of such a calculus include the feasibility of interpersonal utility comparisons, the weighting of utility through time, and the "artificial" utility gained not from actual actions but from, for example, avoiding risk. The theoretical person which nonetheless succeeds in undertaking such a computation is said to be a [[rational actor]].

==Utilitarianism and utility==

"[[Utility]]" is defined as the good to be maximized. Different thinkers have further defined it as happiness, well-being or pleasure. The idea of utilitarianism as a moral code was first thought up by 18th century reformer and philosopher [[Jeremy Bentham]]. He believed that, "nature has put man under the governance of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain." Thus, he concluded that good is whatever it is that brings on the greatest happiness. His belief was passed on by others after him.

==Utilitarianism in the social sciences==

Across the social sciences, utilitarianism is encountered in the form of rational choice theories. In [[economics]], it is the foundation of [[marginal analysis]]. In these academic contexts, utilitarianism serves as a tool for the analysis of social behavior. The partial exception to this lies in the field of [[welfare economics]], where some economists have tried to apply modern forms of the "hedonistic calculus" to issues of public choice.

==Critiques of utilitarianism==

Utility has been accused of supporting the idea that the ends justifies means, or that only material means count in the "hedonistic calculus." In fact, this is exactly what Bentham is arguing for.

In addition, Utilitarianism has been accused of being an unworkable system, since one cannot necessarily know the consequences of all actions.

[[Robert Nozick]] used the [[utility monster]] argument to demonstrate that the existence of something extremely efficient at turning resources into pleasure would justify large scale neglect of human needs and wants, potentially to the extent of obliging us to allow the human race to go extinct.

Nozick also used the analogy of [[The Experience Machine]] to demonstrate that people value something other than pleasure.

It has also been pointed out that Utilitarianism does not acknowledge special relationships, entitlements and agreements. For example, most people consider themselves justified in prioritising the well being of their friends and loved ones, even when more pleasure would be produced by aiding worse off strangers. People would also consider it unjust if their employer decided to give their paycheque to charity, because even though giving the paycheque to charity may service the greater good, the employee is entitled to his paycheque. An agreement like someone promising to do something for someone else could be broken for the greater good, but it is hard to see how this is justified except in extreme circumstances. The utilitarian counter-argument would be that breaking a promise or a contract causes unhappiness and so is wrong after all. But this is inadequate, as breaking a promise causes unhappiness because it is wrong, it is not wrong because it causes unhappiness.

== See also ==

*[[Hedonism]]

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Utilitarianism

2009-02-27T20:47:48Z

JHanson: /* Critiques of utilitarianism */

'''Utilitarianism''' is a political [[moral]] [[philosophy]] which calls for actions to be judged on their usefulness (or magnitude of reward) to society or select individuals.

Jeremy Bentham, one of utilitarianism's early proponents, called the process of determining the most useful possible action the hedonistic calculus. One would, according to Bentham, measure the pleasure of certain actions against the pleasure of other actions. The problems of such a calculus include the feasibility of interpersonal utility comparisons, the weighting of utility through time, and the "artificial" utility gained not from actual actions but from, for example, avoiding risk. The theoretical person which nonetheless succeeds in undertaking such a computation is said to be a [[rational actor]].

==Utilitarianism and utility==

"[[Utility]]" is defined as the good to be maximized. Different thinkers have further defined it as happiness, well-being or pleasure. The idea of utilitarianism as a moral code was first thought up by 18th century reformer and philosopher [[Jeremy Bentham]]. He believed that, "nature has put man under the governance of two sovereign masters: pleasure and pain." Thus, he concluded that good is whatever it is that brings on the greatest happiness. His belief was passed on by others after him.

==Utilitarianism in the social sciences==

Across the social sciences, utilitarianism is encountered in the form of rational choice theories. In [[economics]], it is the foundation of [[marginal analysis]]. In these academic contexts, utilitarianism serves as a tool for the analysis of social behavior. The partial exception to this lies in the field of [[welfare economics]], where some economists have tried to apply modern forms of the "hedonistic calculus" to issues of public choice.

==Critiques of utilitarianism==

Utility has been accused of supporting the idea that the ends justifies means, or that only material means count in the "hedonistic calculus." In fact, this is exactly what Bentham is arguing for.

In addition, Utilitarianism has been accused of being an unworkable system, since one cannot necessarily know the consequences of all actions.

[[Robert Nozick]] used the [[utility monster]] argument to demonstrate that given the existence of something extremely efficient at turning resources into pleasure large scale neglect of human needs and wants would be justified, potentially to the extent of obliging us to allow the human race to go extinct.

Nozick also used the analogy of [[The Experience Machine]] to demonstrate that people value something other than pleasure.

It has also been pointed out that Utilitarianism does not acknowledge special relationships, entitlements and agreements. For example, most people consider themselves justified in prioritising the well being of their friends and loved ones, even when more pleasure would be produced by aiding worse off strangers. People would also consider it unjust if their employer decided to give their paycheque to charity, because even though giving the paycheque to charity may service the greater good, the employee is entitled to his paycheque. An agreement like someone promising to do something for someone else could be broken for the greater good, but it is hard to see how this is justified except in extreme circumstances. The utilitarian counter-argument would be that breaking a promise or a contract causes unhappiness and so is wrong after all. But this is inadequate, as breaking a promise causes unhappiness because it is wrong, it is not wrong because it causes unhappiness.

== See also ==

*[[Hedonism]]

[[Category:Philosophical systems]]
[[Category:Economics]]

The Experience Machine

2009-02-27T20:35:19Z

JHanson:

'''The Experience Machine''' is a thought experiment presented by [[Robert Nozick]] as an argument against [[Utilitarianism]]<ref>''Anarchy, State and Utopia.'' Nozick, Robert.</ref>. The experience machine is used by "super-neuroscientists" to simulate a world for us in which all wishes and desires would be satisifed. We will be plugged into the machine for the rest of our lives, but will forget the real world and forget that we are plugged into a machine. Nozick argued that many people would refuse to be plugged in, because, contrary to the utilitarianism, they value truth, reality and the ability to actually do things rather than just experience doing them more than they value pleasure.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Philosophy]]

The Experience Machine

2009-02-27T20:32:59Z

JHanson: New page: '''The Experience Machine''' is a thought experiment presented by Robert Nozick as an argument against Utilitarianism<ref>''Anarchy, State and Utopia.'' Nozick, Robert.</ref>. The ...

'''The Experience Machine''' is a thought experiment presented by [[Robert Nozick]] as an argument against [[Utilitarianism]]<ref>''Anarchy, State and Utopia.'' Nozick, Robert.</ref>. The experience machine is used by "super-neuroscientists" to simulate a world for us in which all wishes and desires would be satisifed. We will be plugged into the machine for the rest of our lives, but will forget the real world and forget that we are plugged into a machine. Nozick argued that many people would refuse to be plugged in, because, contrary to the utilitarianism, they value truth and reality more than they value pleasure.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Utility monster

2009-02-27T20:22:57Z

JHanson:

A '''Utility monster''' is a hypothetical entity used by philosopher [[Robert Nozick]] in an argument against [[Utilitarianism]].<ref>''Anarchy, State and Utopia.'' Nozick, Robert.</ref> A Utility monster is a highly efficient consumer of resources: it gains enormous amount of pleasure from very small quantities of a particular resource. So for example, it may get 1000 times more pleasure out of drinking a sip of wine than a wine lover may get if let loose in a fine winery. As cardinal utilitarianism suggests that we allocate goods and resources so that we maximise the total or average amount of pleasure, given the existence of a utility monster we would be obliged to neglect the needs of human beings in favour of satisfying the monster, perhaps even to the extent of annihilating the human race.

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Utility monster

2009-02-27T20:22:37Z

JHanson: New page: A '''Utility monster''' is a hypothetical entity used by philosopher Robert Nozick in an argument against Utilitarianism.<ref>Anarchy, State and Utopia. Nozick, Robert.</ref> A Uti...

A '''Utility monster''' is a hypothetical entity used by philosopher [[Robert Nozick]] in an argument against [[Utilitarianism]].<ref>Anarchy, State and Utopia. Nozick, Robert.</ref> A Utility monster is a highly efficient consumer of resources: it gains enormous amount of pleasure from very small quantities of a particular resource. So for example, it may get 1000 times more pleasure out of drinking a sip of wine than a wine lover may get if let loose in a fine winery. As cardinal utilitarianism suggests that we allocate goods and resources so that we maximise the total or average amount of pleasure, given the existence of a utility monster we would be obliged to neglect the needs of human beings in favour of satisfying the monster, perhaps even to the extent of annihilating the human race.

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:World History Lecture Eight

2009-02-21T22:16:49Z

JHanson: /* Hume */ new section

Just thought I would point out that the slave trade is not considered part of the Columbian Exchange. The Columbian exchange, also known as the great biological exchange, dealt with plants, animals, and pathogens. See for example, Alfred Crosby, ''The Columbian Exchange'' (1972)

== Hume ==

There are a number of errors in the "Enlightenment" section, but I'd like to focus on the errors relating to Hume. First of all, presenting Hume as a sceptic towards religion, while absolutely true, is an understatement. Hume was sceptical of ''everything'' beyond experience, even those things (such as continuity and causation) which previous philosophers had taken for granted. Secondly, it is entirely untrue to claim that there were so few great English philosophers, whether that means English speaking or born in England (hopefully it doesn't mean the latter, because Hume was of course Scottish). Hume is considered one of the greatest not because he has so few peers, but because, surprisingly enough, he was a brilliant philosopher. Thirdly the claim that Hume's chief claim to fame is that he influenced Darwin is utterly absurd. His claim to fame is that he gave the finest statement of empiricism and made important criticisms of philosophy's attempts to understand metaphysics. The fact that he influenced Darwin may be important, but is not even well known. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Dictionary

2009-02-21T19:23:24Z

JHanson: Removing nonsense (parodist?)

A '''dictionary''' is a book that contains an [[alphabet]]ized listing of ideally all known words in a particular language. Typically, the meanings of the words are given along with their origin, accepted spelling, pronunciation, [[part of speech]], and plurals. Some dictionaries also include example sentences or words translated from other languages. The creation of dictionaries can be a dynamic process, due to languages continually developing new words.

[[category:linguistics]]

Morality

2009-02-08T04:41:38Z

JHanson: /* Morality versus law */

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong in one's personal conduct; it is usually contrasted with [[ethics]].

== Morality versus law ==

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that Morality is distinct from the [[law]], but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection.
Natural Law supporters point to examples such as [[slavery]], which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral. A legal positivist would not argue against there often being a causal connection between morality and law, as clearly according to this example and many others there is, but would say that there is no ''inherent'' connection: and thus say that law is not based on morality.

The most commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town centre after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centre after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.

Natural Law theorists would argue against those who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
Instead they believe that morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg‎|thumb|300px|right|In his work ''Mein Kampf'', [[Adolf Hitler]] wrote that the "great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."<ref>http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch10.html</ref>]]

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

According to some theists, only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

One standard objection to this view is the Euthyphro dilemma, posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because the Gods love (approve of, command) it, or if the Gods love certain things because they are just and right. If the latter, then it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, but arbitrary whims. If the former, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the right thing, but they are not made the right thing simply because God commanded them. Morality would then need to have some further, independent ground which might be discoverable independent of religion.

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

The basis of morality for some [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

=== The effects of atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.{{fact}}

Whilst atheism didn't directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

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

[[Category:Religion]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Virtues]]

Morality

2009-02-08T04:41:05Z

JHanson: /* Morality versus law */

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong in one's personal conduct; it is usually contrasted with [[ethics]].

== Morality versus law ==

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that Morality is distinct from the [[law]], but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection.
Natural Law supporters point to examples such as [[slavery]], which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral. A legal positivist would not argue against there often being a causal connection between morality and law, as clearly according to this example and many others there is, but would say that there is no ''inherent'' connection: and thus say that morality is not based on law.

The most commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town centre after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centre after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.

Natural Law theorists would argue against those who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
Instead they believe that morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg‎|thumb|300px|right|In his work ''Mein Kampf'', [[Adolf Hitler]] wrote that the "great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."<ref>http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch10.html</ref>]]

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

According to some theists, only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

One standard objection to this view is the Euthyphro dilemma, posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because the Gods love (approve of, command) it, or if the Gods love certain things because they are just and right. If the latter, then it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, but arbitrary whims. If the former, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the right thing, but they are not made the right thing simply because God commanded them. Morality would then need to have some further, independent ground which might be discoverable independent of religion.

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

The basis of morality for some [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

=== The effects of atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.{{fact}}

Whilst atheism didn't directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

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

[[Category:Religion]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Virtues]]

Morality

2009-02-08T04:19:06Z

JHanson: /* Morality versus law */

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong in one's personal conduct; it is usually contrasted with [[ethics]].

== Morality versus law ==

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that Morality is distinct from the [[law]], but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection.
Natural Law supporters point to examples such as [[slavery]], which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

The most commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town centre after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centre after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.

Natural Law theorists would argue against those who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
Instead they believe that morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg‎|thumb|300px|right|In his work ''Mein Kampf'', [[Adolf Hitler]] wrote that the "great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."<ref>http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch10.html</ref>]]

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

According to some theists, only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

One standard objection to this view is the Euthyphro dilemma, posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because the Gods love (approve of, command) it, or if the Gods love certain things because they are just and right. If the latter, then it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, but arbitrary whims. If the former, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the right thing, but they are not made the right thing simply because God commanded them. Morality would then need to have some further, independent ground which might be discoverable independent of religion.

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

The basis of morality for some [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

=== The effects of atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.{{fact}}

Whilst atheism didn't directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

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

[[Category:Religion]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Virtues]]

Morality

2009-02-08T04:18:30Z

JHanson: This is a much more controversial issue than it is made out to be. Let's acknowledge major debates within jurisprudence.

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong in one's personal conduct; it is usually contrasted with [[ethics]].

== Morality versus law ==

Jurisprudence is traditionally (but not completely) divided between those who advocate Natural Law and those who advocate Legal Positivism. Both agree that Morality is distinct from the [[law]], but it is only advocates of Natural Law who believe that law should be based on morality, whereas Legal Positivists believe that there is no inherent connection.
They point to examples such as [[slavery]], which was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

The most commonly used example to illustrate the difference between the two camps is to imagine a scenario where a law against vehicles being used in a town centre after 21:00 were to be instituted, in an effort to reduce pollution. Then, imagine that someone is caught in the town centre after 21:00 riding a bike. An advocate of natural law would suggest the person not be punished, because bikes do not cause pollution, and it was reduction of pollution that was considered the moral issue in making the law. A legal positivist would instead look to whether or not a bike is a vehicle as defined by the statute, and base punishment on that.

Natural Law theorists would argue against those who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
Instead they believe that morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==
[[Image:Hitlerspeech.jpg‎|thumb|300px|right|In his work ''Mein Kampf'', [[Adolf Hitler]] wrote that the "great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."<ref>http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch10.html</ref>]]

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

According to some theists, only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

One standard objection to this view is the Euthyphro dilemma, posed by Socrates in the dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks whether a thing is made pious (or just, right) because the Gods love (approve of, command) it, or if the Gods love certain things because they are just and right. If the latter, then it seems that God's commands would not be objectively valid, but arbitrary whims. If the former, then morality has an independent existence from God's commands; God is good because God always does the right thing, but they are not made the right thing simply because God commanded them. Morality would then need to have some further, independent ground which might be discoverable independent of religion.

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

However, these arguments presume evolution to be true.
The stance that God created such creatures to act in a way that we would consider moral has at least as much scientific validity as the evolutionary position.

Evolution actually provides no basis for morality:
{{QuoteBox|'''Jaron Lanier''': ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’ 
'''Richard Dawkins''': ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.<ref>'Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ ''Psychology Today'' 30(1):62, January/February 1997, quoted in ''Creation'' 20(3):44, June 1998.</ref>}}

Peter Singer argues that a distinction must be made between the origins and the justification of morality, allowing that evolutionary explanations can be given for the existence of brains or minds able to reason, and hence able to determine what is moral, but that morality has its own logic and is not determined by contingent facts of evolution.<ref>The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology, 1983</ref>

== Morality based on atheism ==

The basis of morality for some [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>'''Bertrand Russell:''' You see, I feel that some things are good and that other things are bad. I love the things that are good, that I think are good, and I hate the things that I think are bad. I don't say that these things are good because they participate in the Divine goodness. 

'''Frederick Copleston:''' Yes, but what's your justification for distinguishing between good and bad or how do you view the distinction between them? 

'''R:''' I don't have any justification any more than I have when I distinguish between blue and yellow. What is my justification for distinguishing between blue and yellow? I can see they are different. 

'''C:''' Well, that is an excellent justification, I agree. You distinguish blue and yellow by seeing them, so you distinguish good and bad by what faculty? 

'''R:''' By my feelings. 
(1948 radio debate; http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm)</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Jeffrey Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

Other atheists, such as Peter Singer, argue that our powers of reasoning provide a basis for morality. This view is shared by many theists, such as Richard Hare and Immanuel Kant, who do not deny the existence of God but think that morality is not derived from, but rather is exemplified by, a divine power.

=== The effects of atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.{{fact}}

Whilst atheism didn't directly ''cause'' these atrocities, because athiesm provides no moral boundaries, it ''allows'' these atrocities to occur.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

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

[[Category:Religion]][[Category:Ethics]][[Category:Virtues]]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2009-02-08T03:49:11Z

JHanson: /* Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... */

{{debate-politics}}

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

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

I'm Another Editor: The basic argument here is whether Creationism should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The prior is not a science and can not be taught as a science because there are no scientific findings to back it up. Believing in evolution does not require atheistic viewpoints. There is no doubting that animals even during the presence of human observation change over the course of time and evolve. This does not say that at some point god did not create the world and animals and people but rather that the people and animals that god created change over the course of time. This is a fact and has been observed on many occasions. There is no argument here. The two ideas can go hand in hand.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

I suggest that you see this website:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Has creationism been proven? it had a lot longer than one hundred and forty eight years.... - Jimbobjeff18
: Today's assignment: Read in my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] the parts about "proof", then explain how you are using the word in your question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Gravity is a ''law'', not a theory. A theory is not "as close to proven as science gets", a ''law'' is. Furthermore, genetic evidence is against the original Darwinian theory of evolution, while "Puncuated Equilibrium" and "Neo-Darwinism" are ruled out by mere probability. Furthermore, is the belief that there may be a God or other Designer who created the universe unscientific because it does not agree with naturalistic prejudice? Give me a break.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 01:23, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: I suspect it's both (gravity, that is) a law ''and'' a theory. That is, there is a theory to explain the law. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --[[User:Desmond]]
::::COUNTER: Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.No energy is ever destroyed, it is simply recycled. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:10, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a ''''scientific'''' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, '''''but likelihood does.''''' It ''is'' equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be ''disproven.'' This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is '''not''' shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have '''based upon the evidence'''. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being
corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think ''before'' asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#**See my point about Values Clarification below.
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YES and NO==

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== I dare you all... ==

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Definitely==
If one theory is to be excluded, it should be that pseudo-science fairy tale aka evolution.--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 16:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Proverbs 26:4==

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him."

I don't think we should have to bring down God's Word to the level of the evolutionists in an attempt convince them. They have already decided that they would rather put their faith in Satan's Lie rather than God's Truth. They will never believe the evidence just based off the evidence because of this. The only solution to stop evolutionists and evolutionism is for evolutionists to have a personal encounter with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can change their minds. We Christians are not strong enough because we are not really taking on the evolutionists, but trying to take on Satan because he is the one that has made their hearts so hard. That is why the only way to win the battle is to show evolutionists the love of Christ. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Uh, no...==

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==What if we nab Him and He says "I didn't do it?==

From what I understand from the ongoing debate, scientists/evolutionists take the stand that a theory cannot be considered scientific if it cannot be falsifiable, or proven wrong. For example, the current theory of evolution could be proven wrong if in the future we excavate human bones in a jurassic layer. (Actually, wouldn't that just push the time frame back a bit?) Therefore evolution theory is scientific. Evolutionists say that since there is no way to disprove whether God created the world, the theory of intelligent design is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. In fact, there is one way to falsify the theory of intelligent design, isn't there? What if, someday, we run into God, and He denies having created the world? That would falsify the theory of intelligent design, making ID, by definition, science. {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
: As you said, they might just put the time frame back a bit. Or they might claim it to be an intrusive burial. Or they might claim that it's not actually Jurassic after all. Whichever it is, they can find ''some'' excuse, so it wouldn't falsify it at all, which means that the theory as a whole (as distinct from some details) is [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

==Implementation: A question for those who support Creationism in the classroom==

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had the power to implement the changes you wanted. This still leaves a problem: large numbers of science teachers who are not qualified to teach Creationism (certainly not from a strictly Biblical standpoint) and who may be strongly motivated not to teach Creationism.

Now: it's been my experience that having a teacher who is ignorant and/or actively hostile to a concept "educate" children is frequently worse than simply not teaching the concept at all. Such a teacher can easily impart ideas that are inaccurate or downright wrong.

That being the case, how would you propose dealing with this problem? I see a few options:

A. Leave it up to individual teachers whether or not to teach Creationism

B. Require teachers, regardless of their personal beliefs, to teach Creationism according to a curriculum approved by Biblical experts, with penalties if they fail to do so.

C. Implement a code of conduct requiring all teachers to be good Christians. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; such codes of conduct were common in this country up until the second half of the twentieth century.)

{{unsigned|BenP}}, June 2008.
: Given that option B is what happens now, but for evolution (i.e. teachers who don't believe in evolution are still required to teach it according to a curriculum approved by evolutionists), then I could ask what would be wrong with option B? Except that I would substitute ''creationary scientists'' for ''biblical experts''. However, what the leading creationist organisations propose (and I go along with this) is basically option A; that teachers who want to teach it be able to and be legally protected. And that includes not just teaching creation science and/or intelligent design, but teaching the problems with evolution. Yes, there has even been a case where a teacher was not allowed to use papers by Gould, etc. if they pointed out problems for evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design. ==

Yes if there is a teachable theory that complies with scientific method
No if there isnt
I firmly believe that students need to learn that everything they are taught , in all subjects is a beginning of the subject , and they exceptions, problem areas , will make more sense if taught after the basics are understood. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
: ID ''is'' a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==

It occurs to me that a similar debate could have occurred 500 years ago, but first, some clarification:

A number of people seem confused on the use of several terms that have been floating around this debate page so I've decided to post some pertinent definitions along with citations just to clear some things up:

All definitions come from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Phenomenon: ''plural phenomena'' : an observable fact or event

Now that that's cleared up I'd like to justify my earlier statement. We seem to be entering yet another period of history where (relatively) new scientific theories (see above) are conflicting with previously accepted religious beliefs and as a result the scientists positing these theories are coming under attack from the religious institutions that these theories threaten. I am, of course, alluding to [[Nicolaus Copernicus]]. If we examine the progression of Copernicus' and subsequently Gallileo's ideas, we see that for some time, there was a debate about whether the Geocentric or Heliocentric theory of universal organization was to be accepted, and we no longer debate whether we should teach the earth as the center of the solar system/universe. In the end, history shows us that the theory backed by available scientific data prevailed, although not before scientific progress in this area was stymied by fear of religious persecution. There are a number of similarities to be drawn between the Copernicans and the Darwinists, in my opinion. I welcome corrections and comments, but please no mudslinging...--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 14:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Copernicus and Galileo were ''creationists'' whose view were not inconsistent with the biblical account. Their dispute was not one of religion vs. science but of their (creationist-compatible) science vs. the secular "science" of Aristotle that the church had adopted.
: The parallel today is of the battle between creationary "science" and secular evolutionary "science". So the parallel is between Darwinists and Aristotelians, not Darwinists and Copernicans.
: Yes, the theory backed by the available scientific data prevailed, as I hope will happen in the future, with creation prevailing, as it is more compatible with the available scientific data than is evolution.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::The parallel I was trying to make was not that Galileo and Copernicus were Darwinists, my point is that they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations. Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion. Today, scientists favoring the Theory of Evolution are coming under attack for a similar set of reasons. The distinction to be made is that we no longer say that the Earth is at the center of the universe just because the church said so. I am simply positing that we take the same stance on evolution based on a preponderance of evidence. In response to your last statement with regards to the scientific data in support of creationism, I respectfully ask that you be more specific, as I am not sure which studies/papers/research/etc. you're referring to.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 13:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations.''": You mean like modern-day creationists?
::: "''Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion.''": But it wasn't. Geocentricism is not taught in the Bible. The church was arguing from the ''secular science'' that they had adopted. Yes, they may have quoted a few biblical passages in support, but the "science" of the day was what they were arguing from, just a many Christians and churches today argue from secular science that evolution is true and try and find biblical passages in support.
::: As for supportive scientific data, I was meaning overall, rather than anything specific, and as such all I can do is point you to [http://creationontheweb.com here]. However, if you want an example, try [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/ this].
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::: To try and make that clearer for those not following, here's it laid out in a table:
:::{| class="wikitable"
! || Copernicus, Galileo, etc.|| Modern creationists || Church establishment of Galileo's time || Modern church establishment || Modern secular science
|-
| '''Position''' || Creationist (you wouldn't think so from anti-creationist arguments) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Evolutionist (to a fair extent) (as anti-creationists keep reminding us). || Evolutionist
|-
| '''Basis of particular beliefs''' || Bible and scientific research || Bible and scientific research || Aristotelean "science" || Secular "science"1 || Philosophical [[Naturalism]]
|-
| colspan="6" |1. The modern church establishment would reject the philosophical naturalism of modern science, but, for the most part not being scientists, put their trust in the "science" of those scientists.
|}
::: From this it can be seen that modern creationists, not modern secular scientists, are the parallel to Galileo and co., whilst in both cases the church establishment opposed on the basis of extra-biblical (I'd say ''un''biblical) views.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear. My point is not that Copernicus and his disciples were preaching evolution. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that they were creationist. My point is that their position of geocentrism was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs. The distinction is that the debate about what lies at the center of our solar system is no longer relevant because observational and scientific evidence arose in overwhelming support of geocentrism, while there is still debate about our origins even in light of observable evolutionary progression in the case of viruses and bacteria, as well as fossil evidence and carbon dating.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 15:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm not suggesting that you were claiming that Copernicus and others were preaching evolution. My comment in the table above about not realising that Copernicus et. al. were creationists is not because they are claimed to have been evolutionists, but because their case is used as an example of science supposedly winning out over religion, whilst ignoring that they were doing their science within their religious framework.
::::: "''...their position of geocentrism [I assume you mean heliocentricism?] was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs.''": This is about as ambiguous as it could be:
:::::* Scripture was ''used'' to oppose it, but Scripture was not opposed to it. Similarly today, Scripture is ''used'' to oppose young-Earth creationism, but Scripture is ''not'' opposed to it.
:::::* The "popular religious opinion" was actually the popular ''scientific'' opinion within the church. Just as evolution is the "popular religious opinion" today.
::::: The geocentricism/heliocentricism debate is (all but) over, because they rely on ''observational'' evidence (because we can observe the present). The origins debate is not over because it relies on ''philosophy'' about the ''unobservable past''. Viruses and bacteria show no changes that would produce microbe-to-man evolution, fossil evidence is missing the fossils that evolution would predict, and [[radiometric dating]] methods are unreliable and biased (and [[carbon dating]] has little to do with it).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

==Teaching ID/Creationism is unfair==

Letting ID be taught in the classroom is not a fair treatment of theories.

Let me give an analogy. Every World Cup somebody complains that it's unfair that Brazil and Italy always seem to win. Surely it would be fairer if Switzerland had a chance for a change? Well, no, because for Switzerland to have a chance at winning the rules would have to be changed substantially to favour Switzerland, so for example while every other team has to field only 11 players, Switzerland get 22. And if rules are to be fair, they must apply equally to all teams. Switzerland (or any other team) doesn't have a right to win every now and again, it must win according to the set of rules all teams are subject to. Even when these rules are applied equally, they will still favour certain teams - the best teams, made up of those who can play best within the rules. And that's a good thing, because whatever team it is, we want the best team to win, we think the best team ''should'' win. Sometimes the best team doesn't win (I think France were the best team in 2006), and there's always some disagreement, but everyone accepts that it's always the teams that are very good who win the Cup - the winner isn't selected by the rules at random.

The same is all true of the scientific review of theories and their acceptance into classrooms. It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught. All theories are subject to the same rules, they all have to pass through the same rigorous testing, peer review process, educational committees and so on before they get to the classrooms, and I hope we can all agree that that's a good thing (yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair). The process favours the best theories, those suitable for being taught in a classroom. ID has not gone through this process, and so it is unfair that it becomes taught in the classroom.

Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so." They may feel similar to how I would feel if every world cup was won by Morocco or Australia because of corruption by officials or something along those lines. However, if every world cup ''were'' being won by those teams for those reasons, I would argue that the officials be sacked and for abuses to be investigated, but never that Italy or Brazil should just be declared winners without having to go through the tournament at all. I would want a new tournament where the rules were being properly enforce to be held, and only if Brazil or Italy were to win it should they be declared winners. In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring, and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated, instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory. Once the rules are enforced properly, then YEC/ID should, if well supported by evidence, be able to successfully pass through the process and only then should they be taught in the classroom. If a YEC/ID believes that it's not just how the rules are being enforced but the rules themselves that are at fault, then they must take into account how their rule changes might affect theories that they believe to be unscientific. For example (and I am not arguing that this is a view YEC/IDs hold) if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population, then such things as astrology and mysticism would, by our principle that our rules should apply to everyone equally, be allowed to slip in.

I'll be interested in PJR's response to this. I hope my analogy was clear, and my post not too long. And finally, if anybody wants to post a criticism of my view, please take the entire post into account, because I don't want one of my claims being picked on when I've already provided counter-criticisms elsewhere in the post.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 22:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2009-02-08T03:08:40Z

JHanson: /* Teaching ID/Creationism is unfair */

{{debate-politics}}

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

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

I'm Another Editor: The basic argument here is whether Creationism should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The prior is not a science and can not be taught as a science because there are no scientific findings to back it up. Believing in evolution does not require atheistic viewpoints. There is no doubting that animals even during the presence of human observation change over the course of time and evolve. This does not say that at some point god did not create the world and animals and people but rather that the people and animals that god created change over the course of time. This is a fact and has been observed on many occasions. There is no argument here. The two ideas can go hand in hand.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

I suggest that you see this website:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Has creationism been proven? it had a lot longer than one hundred and forty eight years.... - Jimbobjeff18
: Today's assignment: Read in my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] the parts about "proof", then explain how you are using the word in your question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Gravity is a ''law'', not a theory. A theory is not "as close to proven as science gets", a ''law'' is. Furthermore, genetic evidence is against the original Darwinian theory of evolution, while "Puncuated Equilibrium" and "Neo-Darwinism" are ruled out by mere probability. Furthermore, is the belief that there may be a God or other Designer who created the universe unscientific because it does not agree with naturalistic prejudice? Give me a break.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 01:23, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: I suspect it's both (gravity, that is) a law ''and'' a theory. That is, there is a theory to explain the law. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --[[User:Desmond]]
::::COUNTER: Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.No energy is ever destroyed, it is simply recycled. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:10, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a ''''scientific'''' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, '''''but likelihood does.''''' It ''is'' equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be ''disproven.'' This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is '''not''' shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have '''based upon the evidence'''. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being
corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think ''before'' asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#**See my point about Values Clarification below.
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YES and NO==

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== I dare you all... ==

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Definitely==
If one theory is to be excluded, it should be that pseudo-science fairy tale aka evolution.--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 16:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Proverbs 26:4==

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him."

I don't think we should have to bring down God's Word to the level of the evolutionists in an attempt convince them. They have already decided that they would rather put their faith in Satan's Lie rather than God's Truth. They will never believe the evidence just based off the evidence because of this. The only solution to stop evolutionists and evolutionism is for evolutionists to have a personal encounter with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can change their minds. We Christians are not strong enough because we are not really taking on the evolutionists, but trying to take on Satan because he is the one that has made their hearts so hard. That is why the only way to win the battle is to show evolutionists the love of Christ. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Uh, no...==

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==What if we nab Him and He says "I didn't do it?==

From what I understand from the ongoing debate, scientists/evolutionists take the stand that a theory cannot be considered scientific if it cannot be falsifiable, or proven wrong. For example, the current theory of evolution could be proven wrong if in the future we excavate human bones in a jurassic layer. (Actually, wouldn't that just push the time frame back a bit?) Therefore evolution theory is scientific. Evolutionists say that since there is no way to disprove whether God created the world, the theory of intelligent design is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. In fact, there is one way to falsify the theory of intelligent design, isn't there? What if, someday, we run into God, and He denies having created the world? That would falsify the theory of intelligent design, making ID, by definition, science. {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
: As you said, they might just put the time frame back a bit. Or they might claim it to be an intrusive burial. Or they might claim that it's not actually Jurassic after all. Whichever it is, they can find ''some'' excuse, so it wouldn't falsify it at all, which means that the theory as a whole (as distinct from some details) is [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

==Implementation: A question for those who support Creationism in the classroom==

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had the power to implement the changes you wanted. This still leaves a problem: large numbers of science teachers who are not qualified to teach Creationism (certainly not from a strictly Biblical standpoint) and who may be strongly motivated not to teach Creationism.

Now: it's been my experience that having a teacher who is ignorant and/or actively hostile to a concept "educate" children is frequently worse than simply not teaching the concept at all. Such a teacher can easily impart ideas that are inaccurate or downright wrong.

That being the case, how would you propose dealing with this problem? I see a few options:

A. Leave it up to individual teachers whether or not to teach Creationism

B. Require teachers, regardless of their personal beliefs, to teach Creationism according to a curriculum approved by Biblical experts, with penalties if they fail to do so.

C. Implement a code of conduct requiring all teachers to be good Christians. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; such codes of conduct were common in this country up until the second half of the twentieth century.)

{{unsigned|BenP}}, June 2008.
: Given that option B is what happens now, but for evolution (i.e. teachers who don't believe in evolution are still required to teach it according to a curriculum approved by evolutionists), then I could ask what would be wrong with option B? Except that I would substitute ''creationary scientists'' for ''biblical experts''. However, what the leading creationist organisations propose (and I go along with this) is basically option A; that teachers who want to teach it be able to and be legally protected. And that includes not just teaching creation science and/or intelligent design, but teaching the problems with evolution. Yes, there has even been a case where a teacher was not allowed to use papers by Gould, etc. if they pointed out problems for evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design. ==

Yes if there is a teachable theory that complies with scientific method
No if there isnt
I firmly believe that students need to learn that everything they are taught , in all subjects is a beginning of the subject , and they exceptions, problem areas , will make more sense if taught after the basics are understood. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
: ID ''is'' a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==

It occurs to me that a similar debate could have occurred 500 years ago, but first, some clarification:

A number of people seem confused on the use of several terms that have been floating around this debate page so I've decided to post some pertinent definitions along with citations just to clear some things up:

All definitions come from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Phenomenon: ''plural phenomena'' : an observable fact or event

Now that that's cleared up I'd like to justify my earlier statement. We seem to be entering yet another period of history where (relatively) new scientific theories (see above) are conflicting with previously accepted religious beliefs and as a result the scientists positing these theories are coming under attack from the religious institutions that these theories threaten. I am, of course, alluding to [[Nicolaus Copernicus]]. If we examine the progression of Copernicus' and subsequently Gallileo's ideas, we see that for some time, there was a debate about whether the Geocentric or Heliocentric theory of universal organization was to be accepted, and we no longer debate whether we should teach the earth as the center of the solar system/universe. In the end, history shows us that the theory backed by available scientific data prevailed, although not before scientific progress in this area was stymied by fear of religious persecution. There are a number of similarities to be drawn between the Copernicans and the Darwinists, in my opinion. I welcome corrections and comments, but please no mudslinging...--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 14:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Copernicus and Galileo were ''creationists'' whose view were not inconsistent with the biblical account. Their dispute was not one of religion vs. science but of their (creationist-compatible) science vs. the secular "science" of Aristotle that the church had adopted.
: The parallel today is of the battle between creationary "science" and secular evolutionary "science". So the parallel is between Darwinists and Aristotelians, not Darwinists and Copernicans.
: Yes, the theory backed by the available scientific data prevailed, as I hope will happen in the future, with creation prevailing, as it is more compatible with the available scientific data than is evolution.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::The parallel I was trying to make was not that Galileo and Copernicus were Darwinists, my point is that they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations. Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion. Today, scientists favoring the Theory of Evolution are coming under attack for a similar set of reasons. The distinction to be made is that we no longer say that the Earth is at the center of the universe just because the church said so. I am simply positing that we take the same stance on evolution based on a preponderance of evidence. In response to your last statement with regards to the scientific data in support of creationism, I respectfully ask that you be more specific, as I am not sure which studies/papers/research/etc. you're referring to.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 13:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations.''": You mean like modern-day creationists?
::: "''Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion.''": But it wasn't. Geocentricism is not taught in the Bible. The church was arguing from the ''secular science'' that they had adopted. Yes, they may have quoted a few biblical passages in support, but the "science" of the day was what they were arguing from, just a many Christians and churches today argue from secular science that evolution is true and try and find biblical passages in support.
::: As for supportive scientific data, I was meaning overall, rather than anything specific, and as such all I can do is point you to [http://creationontheweb.com here]. However, if you want an example, try [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/ this].
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::: To try and make that clearer for those not following, here's it laid out in a table:
:::{| class="wikitable"
! || Copernicus, Galileo, etc.|| Modern creationists || Church establishment of Galileo's time || Modern church establishment || Modern secular science
|-
| '''Position''' || Creationist (you wouldn't think so from anti-creationist arguments) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Evolutionist (to a fair extent) (as anti-creationists keep reminding us). || Evolutionist
|-
| '''Basis of particular beliefs''' || Bible and scientific research || Bible and scientific research || Aristotelean "science" || Secular "science"1 || Philosophical [[Naturalism]]
|-
| colspan="6" |1. The modern church establishment would reject the philosophical naturalism of modern science, but, for the most part not being scientists, put their trust in the "science" of those scientists.
|}
::: From this it can be seen that modern creationists, not modern secular scientists, are the parallel to Galileo and co., whilst in both cases the church establishment opposed on the basis of extra-biblical (I'd say ''un''biblical) views.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear. My point is not that Copernicus and his disciples were preaching evolution. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that they were creationist. My point is that their position of geocentrism was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs. The distinction is that the debate about what lies at the center of our solar system is no longer relevant because observational and scientific evidence arose in overwhelming support of geocentrism, while there is still debate about our origins even in light of observable evolutionary progression in the case of viruses and bacteria, as well as fossil evidence and carbon dating.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 15:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm not suggesting that you were claiming that Copernicus and others were preaching evolution. My comment in the table above about not realising that Copernicus et. al. were creationists is not because they are claimed to have been evolutionists, but because their case is used as an example of science supposedly winning out over religion, whilst ignoring that they were doing their science within their religious framework.
::::: "''...their position of geocentrism [I assume you mean heliocentricism?] was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs.''": This is about as ambiguous as it could be:
:::::* Scripture was ''used'' to oppose it, but Scripture was not opposed to it. Similarly today, Scripture is ''used'' to oppose young-Earth creationism, but Scripture is ''not'' opposed to it.
:::::* The "popular religious opinion" was actually the popular ''scientific'' opinion within the church. Just as evolution is the "popular religious opinion" today.
::::: The geocentricism/heliocentricism debate is (all but) over, because they rely on ''observational'' evidence (because we can observe the present). The origins debate is not over because it relies on ''philosophy'' about the ''unobservable past''. Viruses and bacteria show no changes that would produce microbe-to-man evolution, fossil evidence is missing the fossils that evolution would predict, and [[radiometric dating]] methods are unreliable and biased (and [[carbon dating]] has little to do with it).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

===Teaching ID/Creationism is unfair===

Letting ID be taught in the classroom is not a fair treatment of theories.

Let me give an analogy. Every World Cup somebody complains that it's unfair that Brazil and Italy always seem to win. Surely it would be fairer if Switzerland had a chance for a change? Well, no, because for Switzerland to have a chance at winning the rules would have to be changed substantially to favour Switzerland, so for example while every other team has to field only 11 players, Switzerland get 22. And if rules are to be fair, they must apply equally to all teams. Switzerland (or any other team) doesn't have a right to win every now and again, it must win according to the set of rules all teams are subject to. Even when these rules are applied equally, they will still favour certain teams - the best teams, made up of those who can play best within the rules. And that's a good thing, because whatever team it is, we want the best team to win, we think the best team ''should'' win. Sometimes the best team doesn't win (I think France were the best team in 2006), and there's always some disagreement, but everyone accepts that it's always the teams that are very good who win the Cup - the winner isn't selected by the rules at random.

The same is all true of the scientific review of theories and their acceptance into classrooms. It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught. All theories are subject to the same rules, they all have to pass through the same rigorous testing, peer review process, educational committees and so on before they get to the classrooms, and I hope we can all agree that that's a good thing (yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair). The process favours the best theories, those suitable for being taught in a classroom. ID has not gone through this process, and so it is unfair that it becomes taught in the classroom.

Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so." They may feel similar to how I would feel if every world cup was won by Morocco or Australia because of corruption by officials or something along those lines. However, if every world cup ''were'' being won by those teams for those reasons, I would argue that the officials be sacked and for abuses to be investigated, but never that Italy or Brazil should just be declared winners without having to go through the tournament at all. I would want a new tournament where the rules were being properly enforce to be held, and only if Brazil or Italy were to win it should they be declared winners. In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring, and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated, instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory. Once the rules are enforced properly, then YEC/ID should, if well supported by evidence, be able to successfully pass through the process and only then should they be taught in the classroom. If a YEC/ID believes that it's not just how the rules are being enforced but the rules themselves that are at fault, then they must take into account how their rule changes might affect theories that they believe to be unscientific. For example (and I am not arguing that this is a view YEC/IDs hold) if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population, then such things as astrology and mysticism would, by our principle that our rules should apply to everyone equally, be allowed to slip in.

I'll be interested in PJR's response to this. I hope my analogy was clear, and my post not too long. And finally, if anybody wants to post a criticism of my view, please take the entire post into account, because I don't want one of my claims being picked on when I've already provided counter-criticisms elsewhere in the post.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 22:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Norm Coleman

2009-02-08T03:06:57Z

JHanson: whoops

[[Image:Coleman.jpg|right|170px]]
'''Norman "Norm" Coleman, Jr.''' (born August 17, 1949) is the Senior United States Senator from [[Minnesota]] and a member of the [[Republican Party]]. He is currently the Senate Minority Deputy Whip, making him the third highest ranking Republican in the U.S. [[Senate]].

==Early Life==
Coleman was born and raised in a [[Jewish]] family in [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]. He is married to actress and model Laurie Coleman. Coleman is a graduate of James Madison High School in Brooklyn, New York and Hofstra University on Long Island.

==Political career==
Coleman's politics have changed dramatically throughout his political career. In college, he was a [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] and protested against the Vietnam War. He ran for student senate and once wrote in his school newspaper "these [[conservative]] kids don't f#ck or get high like we do." In 1993 he was elected mayor of Saint Paul as a member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL). In 1996, Mayor Coleman made a major change. Saying that he was frustrated that the Democratic party he had been a part of from his youth had assumed the role of defenders of the status quo, he switched to the Republican party because he felt it held the best opportunity to bring about job growth, quality education and greater public safety. In 1997, he was reelected mayor as a Republican, with 59 percent of the vote. In 1998 he ran for Governor of Minnesota and lost to former professional wrestler [[Jesse Ventura]]. In 2002 Coleman was elected to the United States Senate, defeating former Vice President [[Walter Mondale]].

==United States Senate==
Coleman is a member of four Senate committees including the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. In 2004 he ran for chairman of the [[National Republican Senatorial Committee]] (N.R.S.C.) but was defeated by [[North Carolina]] Senator [[Elizabeth Dole]] by one vote. Senator Coleman calls himself pro-life but has voted in support of embryonic stem cell research. He opposes [[gay]] marriages and civil unions. Coleman opposed President [[George W. Bush]]'s troop increase in [[Iraq]] in January of 2007.

== 2008 Senate re-election results ==
Senator Coleman ran for reelection in 2008. His opponents were former U.S. Senator [[Dean Barkley]] of the [[Independence Party]], and the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party candidate [[Al Franken]].

After a recount, Senator Norm Coleman lost the election to Al Franken by 225 votes. Dean Barkley garnered 437,505 votes, while Senator Coleman garnered 1,212,206 votes, and Al Franken garnered 1,212,431 votes.<ref>[http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all&P=A&Races='' Minnesota Secretary of State statewide election results]</ref> Norm Coleman's campaign has filed a law suit to prevent Franken from taking office.

Minnesota state law requires an automatic recount if the the margin of victory is less than 0.5%.<ref>Duchscher, Kevin Mike Kaszuba and Mark Brunswick (November 18, 2008) [http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/34607244.html Canvassing Board to meet at 1 p.m. to review results] StarTribune</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==External Links==
*[http://coleman.senate.gov/ Official Site]
*[http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Norm_Coleman.htm Coleman On the Issues]
*[http://blogsforcoleman.wordpress.com/ Blogs for Norm Coleman]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Coleman Jr, Norman}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2009-02-08T03:04:59Z

JHanson:

{{debate-politics}}

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

==='''Teach Science As Science And Philosophy As Philosophy'''===

There seems to be an inherent contradiction in the notion that the existence of god/the mystical creation of life can be pursued as a scientific discipline, or something that could be taught as such a discipline. They most fundamental requirement of Christianity is faith, a belief in God and submission.

To pursue creationism or ID as a science or near-science is to throw aside faith in the search for logical underpinnings to the development of life. To me, that seems like a contradiction.

They certainly contradict each other, because they are both religions. Anything anyone holds as the supreme intelligence of the universe becomes his God. With the atheist, or humanist (both evolutionists) it's the mind of man. The humanist manifesto admits as much. Punch it up on your computer, and read it and see for yourself. Doesn't it speak volumes that the atheistic experience in Communism used terms such as:"Utopia" (perfection), and Workers "paradise" (Eden)?
Now, why should the religion of the Atheist (evolution) be taught in public school, and the religion of Christianity, which 80% of Americans prefer, be excluded? Evolution belief requires more faith than Christianity. From nothing to single cell, from single to reproducing multiple, invertibrate to vertibrate, sea creature to land, or air, or vice-versa, etc,etc,etc. No Proof. All by faith.

I'm another editor: Creationism or intelligent design should not be taught in a science class. They are not science. It is an utterly stupid question, and one to deflect the issue of whether they should be taught at all, to even ask if they should be taught in a science class. It's as stupid as to ask if sex education should be taught in a math class. The real issue is should evolution be taught in a science class. The answer can only be no, as evolution isn't science either. It's make believe.

For example, if we have survival of the fittest, then there would only be one specie left. This would have to be a plant, because all animals eat plants, and so to have an animal left would mean at plant would have to be left, and that means two species. Furthermore, it would not only have to be one specie of plant left, but if it's truly survival of the species, only one individual plant.

I'm Another Editor: The basic argument here is whether Creationism should be taught as an alternative to the Theory of Evolution. The prior is not a science and can not be taught as a science because there are no scientific findings to back it up. Believing in evolution does not require atheistic viewpoints. There is no doubting that animals even during the presence of human observation change over the course of time and evolve. This does not say that at some point god did not create the world and animals and people but rather that the people and animals that god created change over the course of time. This is a fact and has been observed on many occasions. There is no argument here. The two ideas can go hand in hand.

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know how funny it is that you refer to creationism as 'creationism' and roman beliefs as 'myths'? just two stories, both as unbelievable/believable as each other.

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evolution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

I suggest that you see this website:[http://www.emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/index.htm]. It has a lot to say about creation verses evolution.

Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:03, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Has creationism been proven? it had a lot longer than one hundred and forty eight years.... - Jimbobjeff18
: Today's assignment: Read in my [[essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]] the parts about "proof", then explain how you are using the word in your question. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

::Gravity is not a theory, gravity is a phenomenon.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 08:50, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Actually you are incorrect. A phenomenon is something that can be seen, literally. What you observe when something falls is not gravity but the effect of gravity on an object. There is a difference. Gravity is a scientific theory.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Actully the fall is the phenomenon called gravity. The theory that seeks to explain the cause of the fall is a theory '''OF''' gravity. There is no single theory of gravity, there are many different theories that seek to explain the phenomenon of gravity. A theory of gravity is not called gravity, it's given name such as General Theory of Relativity. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 11:28, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Jaques, I am afraid you are incorrect again. The fall is the phenomenon but it is not gravity. It is the observed effect of gravity, not gravity itself. Falling is not gravity but the force of the attraction is gravity. You can have an object sitting on a plane and it will be affected by gravity however it would not be the same phenomenon that you are claiming is gravity, hence the reason why gravity is not a phenomenon. The theory of gravity tries to explain the force of gravity's interactions of objects within space. The General theory of Relativity seeks to explain special relativity with the added effect of gravitation on the shape of space and the flow of time, not actually trying to explain the force. The two theories are different due to the scopes of what each is trying to explain. Several decades after the discovery of general relativity it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons. I hope this clears everything up.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Gravity is a ''law'', not a theory. A theory is not "as close to proven as science gets", a ''law'' is. Furthermore, genetic evidence is against the original Darwinian theory of evolution, while "Puncuated Equilibrium" and "Neo-Darwinism" are ruled out by mere probability. Furthermore, is the belief that there may be a God or other Designer who created the universe unscientific because it does not agree with naturalistic prejudice? Give me a break.[[User:Lordofthemarsh|Lordofthemarsh]] 01:23, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

: I suspect it's both (gravity, that is) a law ''and'' a theory. That is, there is a theory to explain the law. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)
==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

Hmmm.... Creationism has NO scientific basis what so ever, people merely assume it is true because we traditionally have. Evolution is taught because it is by far the most likely theory judging by what evidence we have. Evolution is, yes, a theory. The term theory in science describes a widely excepted and scientifically based ideathat has produced nearly irrifutable amounts of evidence. Creationism is not a theory or even a hypothesis, but a baseless guess. If evolution was not well established would a respectable magazine such as Science News have a cover asking "Was Darwin Wrong," and an article titled by Half a page filled with the word NO?

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[User:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

"I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true" All I can say is, wow. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. How can you come to any sort of logical or reasoned conclusion that it's not true if you don't want to learn about it? That would be like me saying "I won't read Harry Potter books because I know I don't like them". [[User:Human|Human]] 19:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Okay, I'll answer for ALFa. There is a certain amount of consumable energy in the Universe, and it's decreasing. If the Universe were really billions of Y.O., no more energy would be availible. --[[User:Desmond]]
::::COUNTER: Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy.No energy is ever destroyed, it is simply recycled. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:10, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

NVConservative, the point that ALFa is trying to make is that Creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable. There may be no way to prove it exists, but more importantly, there is no way to prove that it does not exist. With evolution, there are various things that could be observed that would disprove the theory--If the law of superposition was found not to be true, for example (that is, if human fossils were found below dinosaur fossils in the earth). However, there is no such falsifiability for Creationism. Ignore his telling you to reject the Bible and his claims about it being analogous to Lord of the Rings. That's not the point. Remember the question of this debate: Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a ''''scientific'''' alternative to evolution in public schools? Nowhere in the question is it asked whether religion or the Bible is true or important, just whether it should be taught as science. ALFa says that it shouldn't. This is different from a rejection of religion in general.
The point that I'd like to make is that not only is Creationism not science, but trying to present it as science, or trying to study Creationism in a scientific matter is doing religion a disservice. Cross-apply my analysis from "Teach All Theories." My thesis is that trying to mix science and religion destroys the benefits of both--If you stop trying to learn the inner workings of things (such as Evolution), you lose the benefit of science. If you insist that religion must be proven, then you lose the benefits of faith. Religion isn't about proof. Science isn't about faith. The two exist separately, even if their implications sometimes overlap (as in this instance). [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 19:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.- [unsigned]

You are getting mixed up. Truth does not come in degrees, '''''but likelihood does.''''' It ''is'' equally true that WWII happend and that jesus exsisted because they are both undisputable fact. However, the theory of evolution is not. To those of us who beleive in the bible, no evidence can carry more weight than what the bible says and most of it carries less. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

I broadly agree with this [edit: this is to unsigned, not Ben, who interrupted. Ben, first, learn some manners; your faith does not entitle you to be rude to nonbelievers or anybody else. The existence of Jesus is disputable, and in terms of your belief, perhaps the Bible is the end of it, but in terms of its contributions to a scientific discussion on how the universe came into being, the Bible is worthless - it is not scientific evidence of anything]. If I may make a pedantic point, one statement cannot be "more true" than another. A statement is either true or it is not - it's like saying that one circle is "more round" than another, or one corpse "more dead" than another. Another more basic point is that the theory of evolution has not been proven to be true. No scientific theory has been proven to be true. All we can say is that it is consistent with the evidence. As has been pointed out extensively elsewhere on these pages, scientific theories are falsifiable but not provable. Because creation theory is not falsifiable - we cannot test it, as it makes no predictions - it is not a scientific theory. Your main point about the Bible not being a reliable source of factual information about how the universe came to be here is quite right. There are some valuable things to be read in the Bible, but they are more to do with how we should behave - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", as I believe Jesus said, is one such thing - and if I were to publicly proclaim that to discover the nature of the universe, a bronze-age book is a better guide than looking at the evidence, then I would be glad if somebody were kind enough to tell me I'm being stupid. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 15:40, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Would we teach all religions' creation theory? Would you mind your children being taught the Hindu creation story? Not all religious parents are Christians, you know. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:09, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY''' 
By all accounts creationalism is scientific. There is much evidence to support the theory of intelligent design. From the DNA of mitochondria to the fossil record. I think it's possible to teach intelligent design for the same reason they teach evolution. Neither has been succesfully proven, yet evolution is shoved down our throats as absolute fact. P.S. i would like to hear the Hindu creation story. [unsigned]

By all accounts THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO LISTEN TO creationism is scientific ("creationalism" is not a real word). To any person with any knowledge of how science works, it isn't. You point out that neither creation nor evolution has been proven. A true scientific theory can NEVER be proven; it can only be ''disproven.'' This is one of the bases upon which science works. Evolution is '''not''' shoved down our throats as absolute fact - it is simply the best theory we have '''based upon the evidence'''. The moment we find, for example, a modern human skeleton among dinosaur fossils, the whole theory of evolution will be very seriously challenged. On the other hand, creationists don't look at the evidence, they read the Bible. This is why creationism is a part of theology, but not a part of science. There is no evidence at all to support ID theory. When a scientist is faced with a problem which he cannot explain, then if he is honest, he will say, "I don't know," rather than make conjectures about supernatural agents such as God. If he arrives at a theory, he will do everything he can think of to prove himself wrong - but not by making things up. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 20:57, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==Teach all theories==
Yes it should be taught alongside the Humanist religions Evolutionary Theory. Oh, didn't you know? Evolution is to be taught to prove the superiority of the Humanist religion over all mono-theistic religions. The Humanists must have great faith in their theory of Evolution. They must, since after one hundred and forty eight years it still hasn't been scientifically proven. Using the scientific method only, it hasn't been proven. This is why it must be the only accepted theory taught in schools. This is why it is said this theory is more than theory; it's a scientific fact! All opposing and/or competing theories should be taught alongside each other. But only if you want to live in a world of freely competing ideas. Unfortunately for many Americans to indoctrinate the masses into their non-theistic and secular religion they must resort to suppressing any alternate theories. They are, after all, very religious.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roopilots6, I believe you are misunderstanding science. Science does not prove things, it disproves things. The theory of gravity has not been proven. The theory of relativity has not been proven nor shall the theory of evolution be proven. The issue with intelligent design is that it is a philosophy and not a science. How do you test intelligent design? What are the mechanisms that the designer used to design life? The intelligent design movement does not ask these questions, all they state is that life is so complicated that it must have been designed, that is what the IC argument is about. This seems to be giving up on discovering how things work, with this mindset medicine would not have made the break through it has made in the past 50 years.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::TimS, No I haven't misunderstood. Teach all theories. The problem is that the philosophy of evolution isn't science either. Scientists that use evolutionary philosophy mainly do so because they will be more likely to receive funding for their work. The belief system of theoretical doctrines requires great faith from its believers. This is the very definition of religion. Neither evolution, intelligent design, or the theory of gravity have yet to be proven. Evolutionary theory has corrupted true science into mere religion. As a religion, it should only be included into curiculums alongside others such as intelligent design theory. If you want to test intelligent design then follow the science that isn't being
corrupted by the evolutionary theory. You see, I do know science, and I do know religion. If you want to use them together then don't cry foul when others merely want to follow different evidence.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, any experiment done by a biological scientist in regards to evolution will have one of three results.

# It can strengthen current evolutionary theory
# It can force current evolutionary theory to adjust and incorporate
# It can disprove evolutionary theory

:::Using the math skills employed to determine the comparative liberalness of wikipedia, I can ascertain that there is a 33% chance that with any experiment, evolution can be disproven. As much as you say evolution is a religion, evolution is falsifiable and has predictive abilities. ID does not. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:29, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roopilots6, once again you have shown that you truly do not understand science. What you may have learned in a high school science class does not scratch the surface of what constitutes science and what constitute philosophy. As Myk pointed out above the theory of evolution is a science because it meets the criteria of what is science. ID does not meet this criteria as of yet. The whole conspiracy theory about not receiving funding because you take a anti evolution stance is ridiculous, there is nothing that states you must indicate if you are for or against evolution when writing for a grant. Some institutions even support antagonistic evolution research funding due to the research further strengthening the theory. Why your statement about the faith needed to believe in evolution is false can be summed up that the empirical evidence out weighs the antagonistic evidence by such a staggering amount that it would require no faith at all. However, since ID does not give a mechanism for how things happen, nor does it state why things happen, it relies on faith for a person to believe that all living things were the product of the designs of some intelligence, that we can not see nor know how it influenced our designing. This my friend is theology not science. When ID can give an explanation of the mechanism of how this intelligence was able to design all of the diversity of living creatures on this planet then it could be considered science. Evolution is as much of a religion as gravity.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You miss the point. The theory of evolution hasn't met the criteria anymore then ID. Both are unfalsifiable. All of the smug assumptions that have created the bloated empirical evidence are meaningless since it still hasn't proven the theory of evolution to this very date. What you don't get is that this is what lends it to criticism. That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact. Before accusing others of conspiracies you ought not to be pushing your own. That flaw comes from every time you embrace the philosophy of Evolutionary theory. This is why evolutionist always make personal attacks when they've been called out since they know it is a merely a theory that will never be proven. It is theology cloaked with its priestly scientists endeavoring in a never ending quest to worship the creature and not its CREATOR. When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science. This was my whole point that neither has of yet shown the MECHANISM so that both should be considered within the realm of scientific inquiry. Even though I know the secular Humanist will never accept that.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roopilots6, I guess you do not understand evolution. Research it some more. It has met and has passed the criteria for being a science and theory. Evolution is falsifiable, finding human bones lower in the earth's strata than dinosaurs would falsify evolution. Bacteria and viruses not adapting to antibodies would disprove evolution. Lack of mutations in the genome would disprove evolution. Your understanding of theory and science seems a bit flawed, theories are never proven but disproved. Science never proves anything but disproves much. Of course it leads to criticism, science is about digging and developing the understanding of a topic. Critical ideas are what is needed to be able to provide objective evidence to support the science. If there was no criticism then the science would be one sided and therefore biased. As for your statement about the mechanism it has been shown, mutation of genetic material. It is ID that says that the mutation is directed and therefore the burden of proof of what directs the mutation falls on ID. Evolution says it is just mutation and nothing else, because that is all that has been tested and observed. Please read up on what science is and about the theory of evolution before trying to be critical of it, your statements show a lack of understanding of both.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you. I have no doubt that you have been selectively educated in how to view your world in exsclusively evolutionary ways. You've been taught that it is the only way that science can be used. Creationism/ID and Evolution are both UNFALSIFIABLE because they are the antithesis of each other. I do have a better understanding of both as apposed to your understanding of only one.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Roo, once again you show a lack of understanding. Evolution is falsifiable, some basic tests to falsify it are found in fossil records, dog breeding, and gene mutation not to mention the thousands of other tests that have been performed over the last 100 years by scientist who wanted to disprove the theory. ID acknowledges that a form of evolution takes place but can not provided the mechanism of how a designer could influence this form of evolution. William Dembski just posted today on his blog about directed evolution and how it is not Darwinian, thus supporting the fact that ID does rely on a form of evolution, however directed. Not until a mechanism is proposed can ID be considered a science, it is philosophical until it proposes something that can be tested. As of yet nothing has been produced that can be tested. That is the difference you seem to be missing about ID and ToE. I must that an attack on my education does not support your understanding of the theory of evolution, especially when the facts are clear about how the theory of evolution is falsifiable and how ID is not. As for being selectively educated, I would not disagree. Scientists tend to be educated by the majority opinion at that time, and currently the theory of evolution is held to be the most accurate theory for life diversity in the bioscientific disciplines. There is no dispute of this. Take a 400 series molecular genetics course and try to understand what is being presented without a clear understanding of evolution.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 11:57, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"I do understand the THEORY of evolution. I can see why you're having a problem wrapping your head around the whole debate. I'm beginning to see that I have a better understanding of what science is and what passes for science for many people as well as you." Roo, you consider ID to be science. ID is not science. ID's claim is, essentially: "Life is really, really, complex. Because life is so complex, we are going to accept that we cannot understand the mechanism for its development, and so resort to christian dogma." If you think that is science, then you do not have a better understanding of what science is than most. "That there are too many assumptions needed in order to embrace it as scientific fact." Please, list them. "When evolution can give its explanation of the MECHANISM that enabled all of the diversity of creatures then it could be considered true science." Um...genetic modification? Have you ever wondered why people get new flu shots every year? Or why it's unwise to take antibiotics more than necessary? Also, if each species was independently designed, why do early human fetuses resemble those of pigs, rabbits, and other vertebrae?

::Wrong, that isn't the claim of ID. If you don't know what the assumptions of evolution are, well you might want to learn more about the subject. Yes, by the simple rule of majority opinion, I would agree there would be no dispute. Science by mob rule, well you're welcome to that if you like it. Go ahead and keep repeating the mantra of Evolutionary theory is scientific fact while ID isn't, or the theory of evolution is falsifiable and ID isn't. Maybe people will believe it after repeating it enough times. What's the deal on directed evolution? The eugenicists believe they are helping in the process of evolution by making decisions about who can live and who will not. One of the great ideas spawned from the idea of natural selection of the survival of the fittest. The Nazis loved the eugenicists so that after 1945 the eugenists changed the name of the American Eugenics Society to the Society for the Study of Social Biology in 1972. All of this from the book with the title: On The Origin of Species, By Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the struggle for Life, By Charles Darwin, M.A., Published in London: by John Murray, Albemarle Street, 1859. Now of course that subtitle is usually left out on more recent publications, but I think it proves my point. Oh, directed evolution isn't ID either. Sounds more like natural selection to me.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:07, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, I do suggest you read up on evolution. Your last paragraph is throwing up strawmen about evolution. Rumple was not far off about the claim of ID. Intelligent design states that certain features of the universe and of living things can be better explained by an intelligent cause rather than natural processes such as evolution. It is a modern form of the teleological argument, framed in such a way that it does not specify the nature or identity of the designer though its primary proponents identify the designer as God. These proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life; however, intelligent design is not considered to be science by the scientific community because, as per a statement by The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. It is often described as a pseudoscience or junk science by scientists, as well as being proclaimed as such by the National Science Teachers Association.
:::Tell me Roo, how is ID falsifiable? I listed how evolution is falsifiable above, so please fill me in. As for the eugenics issue, well consider that the theory of evolution is based on random mutation, not the guided selective breeding that eugenics would support. So a supporter of eugenics would not be considered a supporter of evolution. Infact eugenics would fall more in line with ID since the evolution (microevolution, which ID claims is true) would be guided by the eugenicist. Perhaps, as I keep stating, you should educate yourself more on the topic of evolution before debating it.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there is a more important point to be made here: It comes back to that word proof. The goals of science and religion are fundamentally different, and various aspects of each can be debated. However, one part is clear: religion is about believing, and science is about knowing. When I say knowing I mean proving. Without proof, one cannot know for sure. That is where religion and faith come in. One believes not because one has, wants, or needs proof. One believes because one has faith. There is absolutely nothing wrong with faith, but it is different from science. Instead of proponents trying to make the argument that Creationism qualifies as science, or that evolution is just a religion, they should look at the fundamental difference between the two and remember why it is so. You shouldn’t try and prove Creationism, and you shouldn’t blindly believe in Evolution. Keep each in its place, for they lie in separate domains. Trying to mix the two inevitably destroys both. I think we can agree that religion has its value, whether stories of Creationism are taken allegorically or literally. Likewise, science has value; through science we can improve the quality of life on Earth. That's my two cents. [[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 17:29, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Teach the controversy! Teach [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|Flying Spaghetti Monsterism]]! [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:01, 24 January 2008 (EST)

==Don't==

Don't teach creationism in school if you don't want to hear evolution in church :P [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Creationism is a cockamany story invented by religion. Religion has no place in schools and is a completley outmoded institution. It no longer serves a purpose and this debate should not have been raised. There is no evidence that would suggest that creationism is a viable alternative to evolution.

==Already_there==

Evolution is already taught in church on Monday thru Friday K-12. Oh, you don't mean the Humanist churches do you. So sorry.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 17:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Roo, I just do not understand this last comment. Are you implying that people should only attend church services to receive an education?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 13:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::In the same way they would be taught evolution to become religionists. You got it down.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:06, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Tell me, should we not teach Pi as 3.14... but teach it as 3 since that is what is derived from the bible for its measurement? What about the ice cores with millions of years of climate data from the Antarctic? Should we ignore this information as well? After all the bible when taken literally only allows the earth to be 6k years old. Enough about these pointless arguments perhaps you should respond to my post above.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well yes it is pointless for me argue the point. Change Pi? I don't think so. Listen, there are plenty of sources that will give you a different perspective then evolutions. The science is there. Learn the alternatives and don't be entrenched in evolution because it's become more religion then science.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:33, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, perhaps you should look into evolution a bit more. I have studied and taught cellular and molecular biology based classes for years now, and have yet to find an alternative to Evoultion that has the same amount of evidence and support from my peers. Nature has shown us things that evoultion predicts we would see as well as supports the basic claim of evolution, that organisms evolve over time with different stimuli. I have yet to find an alternative that would provide the same amount or better information than evolution at this time. Perhaps you could provide some samples that I could test?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 08:59, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Tims, if survival of the fittest is true, then perhaps you could answer one simple question: Why isn't there just one specie left? Actually, another question: Why isn't there just one individual of one specie left? Earl100.

It would seem TimS has wandered off to a more interesting corner of the net, Earl, but if you want an answer to that rather ridiculous question, I can offer you another question: if there were only one individual member of one species left, what would it eat? Presumably it would be able to fly, or else it would never be able to eat all the insects and birds, and it would be able to swim to very great depths, so as to consume all the life that lives in the oceans. It would be swift and strong in order to outrun and kill every other land creature, and it would have be very agile and nimble so as to reach the less accessible places where life is to be found. It would have to be immune to every poison produced by other animals and plants. In order to consume all other living things, it would have evolved to live in all environments - from tropical deserts and swamps, to temperate areas, alpine areas, and of course it would be at home at the ice caps. Perhaps you would like to submit a drawing of what you think this creature might look like - I have a powerful imagination, but I can't conceive of such a creature (although humans are the nearest thing to it, and the rate at which we are wiping out other species suggests that it may just be a matter of time...). Or perhaps you might prefer to think ''before'' asking questions about a subject you clearly don't understand? Look at life on earth. On the African plains, lions kill and eat zebra, but they don't wipe out whole herds in one go - as apparently they instinctively know that if they leave the fitter zebra, they'll have something left to eat next time they go hunting. The survival of any one species depends on the survival of other species. I know that this idea doesn't conform to the conservative notion of self-interestedness, but reality seldom does. --[[User:Beanbag|Beanbag]] 13:05, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

==QM is an Object Lession in Science==

If you want to ''really'' understand the way that science works, look at the history of Quantum Mechanics. What starts out to be a nice little idea (namely that the world at the micro level is discrete rather than continuous), has had huge ramifications and has accumulated an enormous body of results, mainly becsuse (a) no-one really understood the philosophical underpinnings of the theory, and (b) no-one actually believed its predictions. Scientists have subjected this theory to all sorts of tests, to try to find the flaws in the logic, the holes in the theory, in order to understand what is basically going on - mainly because they could not believe their own predictions. Einstein concocted the famous EPR experiment in order to demonstrate what he believed to be the inconsistencies inherent in the theory - this was his attempt to demonstrate that 'God does not play dice' with the universe. The experiment, however, confirmed, rather than falsified the theory. However, we should note that this did not mean that scientists stopped testing the theory. The fact that its results are so bizarre, has led scientists to throw test after test at it in order to find the limits to the theory.

Quantum Mechanics is merely a model of the world: it has (a) an interesting idea, (b) a mathematical framework which is derived from that idea, which has both predictive and explanatory power, which produce (c) testable hypotheses which (d) have been tested to destruction. One day, someone will come up with an challenge that QM can't answer, and we will know the limits of the model. That will then allow us to formulate improvements to the model, or reject it in favour of a better model. That is the purpose of all the experiments.

That is the way that science works. If you are in favour of teaching science in schools, then you need to include in the syllabus those things which use this scientific method. If you think science is a waste of time, then you need to find away of accounting for why science has been successful in underpinning the technological advances of the last 200 years (such as the computer on which you are now reading this). Anything that is taught in science lessons, must, de facto, be science.

Creationism is an idea, but has no mathematical or theoretical framework which can yield testable hypotheses. Creationism invokes a creator and a creation point, and puts the action in the past. Unless you are claiming that the creator is still creating, then we cannot test whether the hypothesis is true. Without an ability to test, it is not science.

Evolution on the other hand, is science. You may not agree with it, but evolutionary theory does not just claim that things got this way in the past, but that they are happening here and now. That means that the theory is testable. In addition, evolution has a genetic mechanism which has the potential for explaining how evolution works at the molecular level. Evolution is still a young science, and therefore it is still itself very much evolving and changing. Currently, for example there are indications that there are some genetic mechanisms which allow 'learned' behaviour to be passed on to offspring via meta-tagging of the DNA code. This does not invalidate the central tenet of evolution, it merely modifies the theory to take account of new information, so that it better models the world we observe.

How has creationist theory changed as a result of any observation?

--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 13:02, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, ignorance is truely bliss. It is evident that you have never met an ID scientist or even read how it is applied in science. Of course not. You'd never even consider doing so. I can read many of your points and substitute Evolutionary Theory for Creationism/ID. So you have proven how people see the problem when only one and not both being taught. You live in a world where many, if not most, see the evidence of a Creator every where. People are still free to think openly. The Theory of Evolution is only one way. Mostly embraced by the religion of secular Humanism. So until you get the totalitarian society where you can tell everyone how to think, we'll choose that path ourselves. Let that be a lesson. --[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:21, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]], that was very well put. I must add one thing that I thought up some time ago, since you mention "meta-tagging" of the DNA code... I am waiting for someone to find a strand or section of DNA, any DNA, that has been properly commented. You know, intelligently designed code. And believe me, whatever my thoughts may be on this tempest in a teapot, if we observed such a thing there would be some big headlines in the science journals! [[User:Human|Human]] 19:57, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==The big picture==

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?

I am commenting on that "notions of good or bad" comment. How could you compare evolution and creationism to good and bad. Which one is good and which is bad. That makes no sense.

I don't think we can answer the instant question without giving some attention to the bigger questions. It's all related. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:14, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Go-Go Gadget LINE BY LINE!

The question raises bigger questions:
#What should the scope of public education be?
#*
#Should children be taught how to '''do''' science - or merely be indoctrinated in whatever scientific theory is currently in fashion?
#*Both--they are not mutually exclusive. However, I'm not sure there's any real way to "do" Creationism because it provides no falsifiable hypotheses. Children should be shown what is currently believed to be true in the scientific community today, and they should learn to apply the scientific method to make discoveries on their own.
#*During the 1920s and 1930s, would it have been "good" to teach schoolchildren that blacks are inferior? (See [[Eugenics]].)
#**Yes--if that was the opinion of science at the time, that's what should be taught. Now, today we know that that is not the case, in the same way we know lots of other things now that we didn't know then. Just because someday we might find out that something isn't the case, doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach something of which there is overwhelming evidence today. Also, just for kicks and giggles, Cross-apply TimS's analysis of eugenics under "Teach all theories," that eugenics is inconsistent with the Theory of Natural Selection and thus irrelevant.
#Should children be taught about beliefs which contradict their own religion (or the religion of their parents)?
#**See my point about Values Clarification below.
#*Is "Evolutionism" a "religion"?
#**No, "Evolutionism" is a word you just made up. :-) The Theory of Natural Selection is a set of falsifiable hypotheses that have been demonstrated to be true by experimentation and observation.
#*Is belief in the [[Anthropogenic global warming]] "scientific" or "religious"?
#**Scientific. Anthropogenic global warming is an attempt to explain something (the heating up of the earth) through falsifiable hypotheses. Whether you or I agree with that theory or not is a different story. The attempt to prove is what separates science from religion.
#What other notions of good and bad should children be exposed to?
#*This is far from relevant. Children are not being taught that Creationism and Intelligent Design are bad or that evolution is good. Evolution is simply being presented as a Theory believed to be true at this point in time.
#*Should they be taught "how to have sex"? (Should we assign sex as homework?)
#**What? Are you implying that sex is evil or that we should stop reproducing?
#Should children be taught to think for themselves?
#*If so, this doesn't mean that we should present religion as science.
#*See [[Values clarification]] - sorry, not written yet, I'll put it on my list.
#**Not only is that article far from fact and much more opinion (Isn't this a violation of the commandments?), but the idea that Values clarification is bad is at odds with one of the main arguments in favor of Creationism--"Let them choose for themselves," as well as the argument that you made at the bottom, calling science and social studies "dogma." Which are you suggesting?
#*Should children be taught to '''rebel''' against authority?
#** Where would we be without a little rebellion? ;-) Seriously, though, rebellion checks against evils of the establishment, such as statism or coercion (I know this sounds really liberal, but bear with me). Without any kind of rebellion, we would all live in a fascist totalitarian state.
#*Should children be allowed to question the dogma they are indoctrinated with, in social studies and science classes?
#**Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof (Princeton WordNet, <wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn>). How is anything taught in social studies or science classes dogma? It is exactly the opposite: an attempt to substantiate hypotheses.

Also, I implore you to read my short analysis of religion vs. science under "Teach All Theories." It should be at or near the bottom.

Please try and have a heart--if it looks like I'm poking fun, I am. Debate is about learning, right? The both of us can learn from each other and have a few laughs at the same time. If I come across as rude or sarcastic, I sincerely apologize. Also, if this way of thinking is not tolerated on Conservapedia, forgive me--I'm new.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:04, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==Be careful what you wish for==
In England the Biblical creation account is taught to nearly all children in Religious Education lessons, but in order for to be broadly acceptable it is accompanied by the creation accounts of many other religions, thus reducing it to just another story. Similarly, there is a requirement for state schools to provide daily collective worship but once again the desire for it to be broadly acceptable often leads to it being diluted to a bland "thought for the day" that is scarcely recognisable as worship. Some science curricula even "teach the controversy", but is taught as a controversy of the 19th Century rather than the 21st. Putting creationism/ID in a science curriculum in the the teeth of opposition from the people who will be asked to teach it is, regardless of what you think of its truth, unlikely to lead to it being taught in a way that its proponents would like. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 14:54, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::I'm cool with that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:56, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==YES and NO==

Creationism and Intelligent design should be taught in public schools, but [[Creationism]] should not be taught "as a scientific alternative". That would confuse religious faith with science.

I suppose the question was framed that way on purpose, since liberals make the following argument:
#Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism
#Creationism is religion
#Religion is not science

Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

ID proponents generally disagree with proposition #1, while tending to agree with proposition #2 and #3. So for ID proponents, this is not a [[sound argument]].

Actually, ID is not a form of Creationism. It is an argument that the [[theory of evolution]] has so little material support that a supernatural cause must be considered. Thus ID straddles the bounds between science itself and the [[philosophy of science]]. It gets into the philosophical issues of [[methodology]] and [[epistemology]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:29, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes, but Intelligent design still fails the acid test of being science: it doesn’t substantiate its claim. Evolution attempts to “warrant” itself with evidence from experiments, but the experimentation stops with the grand theory of Intelligent Design: <s>God</s> The Intelligent Designer created everything. The claims are just that--claims. They provide neither substance nor testable hypotheses. Likewise, unless an attempt is made to falsify Intelligent Design, it shouldn't be considered science.
[[User:Bluecarrot16|Bluecarrot16]] 18:11, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==A Radical Alternative==
Perhaps churches could invite guest lecturers to discuss the Cambrian explosion or the Miller-Urey experiment as part of the sermon each Sunday. Or maybe church and state could just maintain healthy but separate spheres of influence? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:44, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== I dare you all... ==

To give one example of a testable proof of ID(Thus proving the necessary definition of science). I say this because I can name one tested hypothesis, I have drug-resistant bacteria. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 14:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)

==Definitely==
If one theory is to be excluded, it should be that pseudo-science fairy tale aka evolution.--[[User:Urban67|Urban67]] 16:50, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Proverbs 26:4==

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him."

I don't think we should have to bring down God's Word to the level of the evolutionists in an attempt convince them. They have already decided that they would rather put their faith in Satan's Lie rather than God's Truth. They will never believe the evidence just based off the evidence because of this. The only solution to stop evolutionists and evolutionism is for evolutionists to have a personal encounter with the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the only one that can change their minds. We Christians are not strong enough because we are not really taking on the evolutionists, but trying to take on Satan because he is the one that has made their hearts so hard. That is why the only way to win the battle is to show evolutionists the love of Christ. [[User:LyleB|LyleB]] 17:40, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==Uh, no...==

Until ID actually presents a valid scientific argument, it shouldn't be in science class. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 17:44, 26 April 2008 (EDT)

==What if we nab Him and He says "I didn't do it?==

From what I understand from the ongoing debate, scientists/evolutionists take the stand that a theory cannot be considered scientific if it cannot be falsifiable, or proven wrong. For example, the current theory of evolution could be proven wrong if in the future we excavate human bones in a jurassic layer. (Actually, wouldn't that just push the time frame back a bit?) Therefore evolution theory is scientific. Evolutionists say that since there is no way to disprove whether God created the world, the theory of intelligent design is not science, and cannot be taught in science class. In fact, there is one way to falsify the theory of intelligent design, isn't there? What if, someday, we run into God, and He denies having created the world? That would falsify the theory of intelligent design, making ID, by definition, science. {{unsigned|Jimtitcomb}}
: As you said, they might just put the time frame back a bit. Or they might claim it to be an intrusive burial. Or they might claim that it's not actually Jurassic after all. Whichever it is, they can find ''some'' excuse, so it wouldn't falsify it at all, which means that the theory as a whole (as distinct from some details) is [[falsifiability of evolution|not falsifiable]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:27, 31 May 2008 (EDT)

==Implementation: A question for those who support Creationism in the classroom==

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you had the power to implement the changes you wanted. This still leaves a problem: large numbers of science teachers who are not qualified to teach Creationism (certainly not from a strictly Biblical standpoint) and who may be strongly motivated not to teach Creationism.

Now: it's been my experience that having a teacher who is ignorant and/or actively hostile to a concept "educate" children is frequently worse than simply not teaching the concept at all. Such a teacher can easily impart ideas that are inaccurate or downright wrong.

That being the case, how would you propose dealing with this problem? I see a few options:

A. Leave it up to individual teachers whether or not to teach Creationism

B. Require teachers, regardless of their personal beliefs, to teach Creationism according to a curriculum approved by Biblical experts, with penalties if they fail to do so.

C. Implement a code of conduct requiring all teachers to be good Christians. (Not as far-fetched as it sounds; such codes of conduct were common in this country up until the second half of the twentieth century.)

{{unsigned|BenP}}, June 2008.
: Given that option B is what happens now, but for evolution (i.e. teachers who don't believe in evolution are still required to teach it according to a curriculum approved by evolutionists), then I could ask what would be wrong with option B? Except that I would substitute ''creationary scientists'' for ''biblical experts''. However, what the leading creationist organisations propose (and I go along with this) is basically option A; that teachers who want to teach it be able to and be legally protected. And that includes not just teaching creation science and/or intelligent design, but teaching the problems with evolution. Yes, there has even been a case where a teacher was not allowed to use papers by Gould, etc. if they pointed out problems for evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:23, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Lets see a Scientific Theory of Creation or Intelligent Design. ==

Yes if there is a teachable theory that complies with scientific method
No if there isnt
I firmly believe that students need to learn that everything they are taught , in all subjects is a beginning of the subject , and they exceptions, problem areas , will make more sense if taught after the basics are understood. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 22:17, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
: ID ''is'' a scientific theory, and scientific versions of creation have been around for decades. You have been taken in by anti-creationist and anti-ID rhetoric that claims that there is no such thing. But I'm glad you agree with the principle. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

== Those Who Forget History are Doomed to Repeat It... ==

It occurs to me that a similar debate could have occurred 500 years ago, but first, some clarification:

A number of people seem confused on the use of several terms that have been floating around this debate page so I've decided to post some pertinent definitions along with citations just to clear some things up:

All definitions come from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

Theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

Hypothesis: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

Phenomenon: ''plural phenomena'' : an observable fact or event

Now that that's cleared up I'd like to justify my earlier statement. We seem to be entering yet another period of history where (relatively) new scientific theories (see above) are conflicting with previously accepted religious beliefs and as a result the scientists positing these theories are coming under attack from the religious institutions that these theories threaten. I am, of course, alluding to [[Nicolaus Copernicus]]. If we examine the progression of Copernicus' and subsequently Gallileo's ideas, we see that for some time, there was a debate about whether the Geocentric or Heliocentric theory of universal organization was to be accepted, and we no longer debate whether we should teach the earth as the center of the solar system/universe. In the end, history shows us that the theory backed by available scientific data prevailed, although not before scientific progress in this area was stymied by fear of religious persecution. There are a number of similarities to be drawn between the Copernicans and the Darwinists, in my opinion. I welcome corrections and comments, but please no mudslinging...--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 14:16, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

: Copernicus and Galileo were ''creationists'' whose view were not inconsistent with the biblical account. Their dispute was not one of religion vs. science but of their (creationist-compatible) science vs. the secular "science" of Aristotle that the church had adopted.
: The parallel today is of the battle between creationary "science" and secular evolutionary "science". So the parallel is between Darwinists and Aristotelians, not Darwinists and Copernicans.
: Yes, the theory backed by the available scientific data prevailed, as I hope will happen in the future, with creation prevailing, as it is more compatible with the available scientific data than is evolution.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:00, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

::The parallel I was trying to make was not that Galileo and Copernicus were Darwinists, my point is that they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations. Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion. Today, scientists favoring the Theory of Evolution are coming under attack for a similar set of reasons. The distinction to be made is that we no longer say that the Earth is at the center of the universe just because the church said so. I am simply positing that we take the same stance on evolution based on a preponderance of evidence. In response to your last statement with regards to the scientific data in support of creationism, I respectfully ask that you be more specific, as I am not sure which studies/papers/research/etc. you're referring to.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 13:43, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
::: "''...they too had to deal with the church saying that their views were not supported by the bible, but only by documented scientific observations.''": You mean like modern-day creationists?
::: "''Therefore, I would argue that their debate was one of science vs. religion.''": But it wasn't. Geocentricism is not taught in the Bible. The church was arguing from the ''secular science'' that they had adopted. Yes, they may have quoted a few biblical passages in support, but the "science" of the day was what they were arguing from, just a many Christians and churches today argue from secular science that evolution is true and try and find biblical passages in support.
::: As for supportive scientific data, I was meaning overall, rather than anything specific, and as such all I can do is point you to [http://creationontheweb.com here]. However, if you want an example, try [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/ this].
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:36, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

::: To try and make that clearer for those not following, here's it laid out in a table:
:::{| class="wikitable"
! || Copernicus, Galileo, etc.|| Modern creationists || Church establishment of Galileo's time || Modern church establishment || Modern secular science
|-
| '''Position''' || Creationist (you wouldn't think so from anti-creationist arguments) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Creationist (as you'd expect) || Evolutionist (to a fair extent) (as anti-creationists keep reminding us). || Evolutionist
|-
| '''Basis of particular beliefs''' || Bible and scientific research || Bible and scientific research || Aristotelean "science" || Secular "science"1 || Philosophical [[Naturalism]]
|-
| colspan="6" |1. The modern church establishment would reject the philosophical naturalism of modern science, but, for the most part not being scientists, put their trust in the "science" of those scientists.
|}
::: From this it can be seen that modern creationists, not modern secular scientists, are the parallel to Galileo and co., whilst in both cases the church establishment opposed on the basis of extra-biblical (I'd say ''un''biblical) views.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:45, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::Perhaps I haven't been entirely clear. My point is not that Copernicus and his disciples were preaching evolution. In fact I wholeheartedly agree with the fact that they were creationist. My point is that their position of geocentrism was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs. The distinction is that the debate about what lies at the center of our solar system is no longer relevant because observational and scientific evidence arose in overwhelming support of geocentrism, while there is still debate about our origins even in light of observable evolutionary progression in the case of viruses and bacteria, as well as fossil evidence and carbon dating.--[[User:CoyPraetorian|CoyPraetorian]] 15:42, 2 November 2008 (EST)

::::: I'm not suggesting that you were claiming that Copernicus and others were preaching evolution. My comment in the table above about not realising that Copernicus et. al. were creationists is not because they are claimed to have been evolutionists, but because their case is used as an example of science supposedly winning out over religion, whilst ignoring that they were doing their science within their religious framework.
::::: "''...their position of geocentrism [I assume you mean heliocentricism?] was opposed for the same reason that Darwinism is opposed, which is that scripture and popular religious opinion of the time was in conflict with their beliefs.''": This is about as ambiguous as it could be:
:::::* Scripture was ''used'' to oppose it, but Scripture was not opposed to it. Similarly today, Scripture is ''used'' to oppose young-Earth creationism, but Scripture is ''not'' opposed to it.
:::::* The "popular religious opinion" was actually the popular ''scientific'' opinion within the church. Just as evolution is the "popular religious opinion" today.
::::: The geocentricism/heliocentricism debate is (all but) over, because they rely on ''observational'' evidence (because we can observe the present). The origins debate is not over because it relies on ''philosophy'' about the ''unobservable past''. Viruses and bacteria show no changes that would produce microbe-to-man evolution, fossil evidence is missing the fossils that evolution would predict, and [[radiometric dating]] methods are unreliable and biased (and [[carbon dating]] has little to do with it).
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:36, 2 November 2008 (EST)

===Teaching ID/Creationism is unfair===

Letting ID be taught in the classroom is not a fair treatment of theories.

Let me give an analogy. Every World Cup somebody complains that it's unfair that Brazil and Italy always seem to win. Surely it would be fairer if Switzerland had a chance for a change? Well, no, because for Switzerland to have a chance at winning the rules would have to be changed substantially to favour Switzerland, so for example while every other team has to field only 11 players, Switzerland get 22. And if rules are to be fair, they must apply equally to all teams. Switzerland (or any other team) doesn't have a right to win every now and again, it must be win according to the set of rules all teams are subject to. Even when these rules are applied equally, they will still favour certain teams - the best teams, made up of those who can play best within the rules. And that's a good thing, because whatever team it is, we want the best team to win, we think the best team ''should'' win. Sometimes the best team doesn't win (I think France were the best team in 2006), and there's always some disagreement, but everyone accepts that it's always the teams that are very good who win the Cup - the winner isn't selected by the rules at random.

The same is all true of the scientific review of theories and their acceptance into classrooms. It's not the case that any theory just has the right to be taught. All theories are subject to the same rules, they all have to pass through the same rigorous testing, peer review process, educational committees and so on before they get to the classrooms, and I hope we can all agree that that's a good thing (yes, any additions like "only materialist theories are allowed" would be unfair). The process favours the best theories, those suitable for being taught in a classroom. ID has not gone through this process, and so it is unfair that it becomes taught in the classroom.

Now defenders of YEC/ID may say "Well evolution is being favoured by the peer review process, because it's wrong and YEC/ID is right and that's being censored. Even though the rules may be fair, the people supposed to be enforcing them are not doing so." They may feel similar to how I would feel if every world cup was won by Morocco or Australia because of corruption by officials or something along those lines. However, if every world cup ''were'' being won by those teams for those reasons, I would argue that the officials be sacked and for abuses to be investigated, but never that Italy or Brazil should just be declared winners without having to go through the tournament at all. I would want a new tournament where the rules were being properly enforce to be held, and only if Brazil or Italy were to win it should they be declared winners. In the same way, if a YEC/ID does think that the rules of scientific review are being improperly enforced, then they should investigate the extent of this injustice by scientists, show how this censorship and favouritism is occurring, and try through legal and democratic processes to get those responsible removed and get people who will enforce the rules impartially instated, instead of just asking for the whole process to be bypassed in the case of their theory. Once the rules are enforced properly, then YEC/ID should, if well supported by evidence, be able to successfully pass through the process and only then should they be taught in the classroom. If a YEC/ID believes that it's not just how the rules are being enforced but the rules themselves that are at fault, then they must take into account how their rule changes might affect theories that they believe to be unscientific. For example (and I am not arguing that this is a view YEC/IDs hold) if the rules were to changed so that a theory simply needed to be accepted by a sizeable percentage of the population, then such things as astrology and mysticism would, by our principle that our rules should apply to everyone equally, be allowed to slip in.

I'll be interested in PJR's response to this. I hope my analogy was clear, and my post not too long. And finally, if anybody wants to post a criticism of my view, please take the entire post into account, because I don't want one of my claims being picked on when I've already provided counter-criticisms elsewhere in the post.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 22:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Norm Coleman

2009-02-02T18:12:42Z

JHanson:

[[Image:Coleman.jpg|right|170px]]
'''Norman "Norm" Coleman, Jr.''' (born August 17, 1949) is the Senior United States Senator from [[Minnesota]] and a member of the [[Republican Party]]. He is currently the Senate Minority Deputy Whip, making him the third highest ranking Republican in the U.S. [[Senate]].

==Early Life==
Coleman was born and raised in a [[Jewish]] family in [[Brooklyn]], [[New York]]. He is married to actress and model Laurie Coleman. Coleman is a graduate of James Madison High School in Brooklyn, New York and Hofstra University on Long Island.

==Political career==
Coleman's politics have changed dramatically throughout his political career. In college, he was a [[liberal]] [[Democrat]] and protested against the Vietnam War. He ran for student senate and once wrote in his school newspaper "these [[conservative]] kids don't f#ck or get high like we do." In 1993 he was elected mayor of Saint Paul as a member of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL). In 1996, Mayor Coleman made a major change. Saying that he was frustrated that the Democratic party he had been a part of from his youth had assumed the role of defenders of the status quo, he switched to the Republican party because he felt it held the best opportunity to bring about job growth, quality education and greater public safety. In 1997, he was reelected mayor as a Republican, with 59 percent of the vote. In 1998 he ran for Governor of Minnesota and lost to former professional wrestler [[Jesse Ventura]]. In 2002 Coleman was elected to the United States Senate, defeating former Vice President [[Walter Mondale]].

==United States Senate==
Coleman is a member of four Senate committees including the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee, and the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. In 2004 he ran for chairman of the [[National Republican Senatorial Committee]] (N.R.S.C.) but was defeated by [[North Carolina]] Senator [[Elizabeth Dole]] by one vote. Senator Coleman calls himself pro-life but has voted in support of embryonic stem cell research. He opposes [[gay]] marriages and civil unions. Coleman opposed President [[George W. Bush]]'s troop increase in [[Iraq]] in January of 2007.

== 2008 Senate re-election results ==
Senator Coleman ran ran for reelection in 2008. His opponents were former U.S. Senator [[Dean Barkley]] of the [[Independence Party]], and the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party candidate [[Al Franken]].

After a recount, Senator Norm Coleman lost the election to Al Franken by 225 votes. Dean Barkley garnered 437,505 votes, while Senator Coleman garnered 1,212,206 votes, and Al Franken garnered 1,212,431 votes.<ref>[http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/20081104/ElecRslts.asp?M=S&R=all&P=A&Races='' Minnesota Secretary of State statewide election results]</ref> Norm Coleman's campaign has filed a law suit to prevent Franken from taking office.

Minnesota state law requires an automatic recount if the the margin of victory is less than 0.5%.<ref>Duchscher, Kevin Mike Kaszuba and Mark Brunswick (November 18, 2008) [http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/34607244.html Canvassing Board to meet at 1 p.m. to review results] StarTribune</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
==External Links==
*[http://coleman.senate.gov/ Official Site]
*[http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Norm_Coleman.htm Coleman On the Issues]
*[http://blogsforcoleman.wordpress.com/ Blogs for Norm Coleman]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Coleman Jr, Norman}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category: 110th United States Congress]]

Essay:Quantifying Idolatry

2009-01-18T20:54:53Z

JHanson: Undo revision 613838 by JimE (Talk)

'''Idolatry''' is defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as "the worship of a physical object as a god" and "immoderate attachment or devotion to something." It is one of the older words in the English language, dating back to the 13th century.<ref>The dictionary does not date the origin of English words prior to the 12th century.</ref>

Can one's degree of idolatry be quantified? Like quantifying time and money, idolatry can be also be quantified.

For example, one could simply calculate the ratio of time he spends doing one or more of the following compare to the time spent in [[prayer]]:

*watching television
*focusing on money
*thinking about favorites of the media, such as politicians or [[Hollywood]] "stars"

One's [[idolatry factor]] is the ratio of time spent on one or more of the above activities to the time spent on God.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

John Rawls

2009-01-17T22:18:15Z

JHanson:

'''John Rawls''' (1921-2002) was an American [[philosopher]], whose writings are considered as some of the most important in 20th century political philosophy.

He is famous for his book "A Theory of Justice", in which he attempted to offer a solution to the problem of distributive justice while supporting both liberty and equality.

== A Theory of Justice ==

In contrast to earlier social contract theorists, who proposed that the agreements made by people in a "State of Nature" to sustain a society formed the foundation of justice, Rawls used the thought experiment of an original position, which serves the purpose of the State of Nature in those earlier philosophies. In this original position, all people are behind a veil of ignorance that prevents them from knowing basic facts about themselves - such as their strength, their intelligence, their class and circumstances. This means that the agreements made that form the social contract will be fair: for example the strong will be in no better position to negotiate than the weak. Furthermore, no group will be discriminated against and no group given special treatment. No rational person behind the veil of ignorance will agree that "the weak should be slaves to the strong", because it may turn out that they are weak. Therefore the rights granted by the agreements will apply to everybody, or as Rawls puts his First Principle "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others."<ref>Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice p.53</ref>

As part of his Second Principle Rawls goes on to suggest the "Difference Principle", which states that inequalities should benefit the least-advantaged members of society. To illustrate this, imagine three ways of running a society. In the first there is much equality but little wealth. In the second there is more inequality, but everybody is wealthier. In the third there is much more inequality, but the poor are less wealthy than they would be in the second society. On the basis of the Difference Principle Rawls would argue that the second way is the most just.

The other part of Rawls' Second Principle is fairness of opportunity. Rawls does not mean to suggest that everyone should have exactly the same opportunities in life, but only that they should have the opportunity to achieve a good life given the circumstances they are placed in.<ref>Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice p.53</ref>

== Criticism ==

His most notable critic was Robert Nozick, who in "Anarchy, State and Utopia" paid tribute to Rawls' contributions, but defended a libertarian viewpoint, according to which it is unjust to redistribute the earnings of the rich and successful amongst the poorer elements of society without their consent. Often "Anarchy, State and Utopia" is read as a companion to "A Theory of Justice."

== References ==

<references/>
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rawls, John}}
[[Category:Philosophers]]

John Rawls

2009-01-17T20:34:39Z

JHanson:

'''John Rawls''' (1921-2002) was an American [[philosopher]], whose writings are considered as some of the most important in 20th century political philosophy.

He is famous for his book "A Theory of Justice", in which he attempted to offer a solution to the problem of distributive justice while supporting both liberty and equality.

== A Theory of Justice ==

In contrast to earlier social contract theorists, who proposed that the agreements made by people in a "State of Nature" to sustain a society formed the foundation of justice, Rawls used the thought experiment of an original position, which serves the purpose of the State of Nature in those earlier philosophies. In this original position, all people are behind a veil of ignorance that prevents them from knowing basic facts about themselves - such as their strength, their intelligence, their class and circumstances. This means that the agreements made that form the social contract will be fair: for example the strong will be in no better position to negotiate than the weak. Furthermore, no group will be discriminated against and no group given special treatment. No rational person behind the veil of ignorance will agree that "the weak should be slaves to the strong", because it may turn out that they are weak. Therefore the rights granted by the agreements will apply to everybody, or as Rawls puts his First Principle "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others."<ref>Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice p.53</ref>

As part of his Second Principle Rawls goes on to suggest the "Difference Principle", which states that inequalities should benefit the least-advantaged members of society. To illustrate this, imagine three societies. In the first there is much equality but little wealth. In the second there is more inequality, but everybody is wealthier. In the third there is much more inequality, but the poor are less wealthy than they would be in the second society. On the basis of the Difference Principle Rawls would argue that the second society is the most just.

The other part of Rawls' Second Principle is fairness of opportunity. Rawls does not mean to suggest that everyone should have exactly the same opportunities in life, but only that they should have the opportunity to achieve a good life given the circumstances they are placed in.<ref>Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice p.53</ref>

== Criticism ==

His most notable critic was Robert Nozick, who in "Anarchy, State and Utopia" paid tribute to Rawls' contributions, but defended a libertarian viewpoint, according to which it is unjust to redistribute the earnings of the rich and successful amongst the poorer elements of society without their consent. Often "Anarchy, State and Utopia" is read as a companion to "A Theory of Justice."

== References ==

<references/>

John Rawls

2009-01-17T20:32:44Z

JHanson: New page: '''John Rawls''' (1921-2002) was an American philosopher, whose writings are considered as some of the most important in 20th century political philosophy. He is famous for his book "...

'''John Rawls''' (1921-2002) was an American [[philosopher]], whose writings are considered as some of the most important in 20th century political philosophy.

He is famous for his book "A Theory of Justice", in which he attempted to offer a solution to the problem of distributive justice while supporting both liberty and equality.

== A Theory of Justice ==

In contrast to earlier social contract theorists, who proposed that the agreements made by people in a "State of Nature" to sustain a society formed the foundation of justice, Rawls used the thought experiment of an original position. In this original position, all people are behind a veil of ignorance that prevents them from knowing basic facts about themselves - such as their strength, their intelligence, their class and circumstances. This means that the agreements made that form the social contract will be fair: for example the strong will be in no better position to negotiate than the weak. Furthermore, no group will be discriminated against and no group given special treatment. No rational person behind the veil of ignorance will agree that "the weak should be slaves to the strong", because it may turn out that they are weak. Therefore the rights granted by the agreements will apply to everybody, or as Rawls puts his First Principle "each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others."<ref>Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice p.53</ref>

As part of his Second Principle Rawls goes on to suggest the "Difference Principle", which states that inequalities should benefit the least-advantaged members of society. To illustrate this, imagine three societies. In the first there is much equality but little wealth. In the second there is more inequality, but everybody is wealthier. In the third there is much more inequality, but the poor are less wealthy than they would be in the second society. On the basis of the Difference Principle Rawls would argue that the second society is the most just.

The other part of Rawls' Second Principle is fairness of opportunity. Rawls does not mean to suggest that everyone should have exactly the same opportunities in life, but only that they should have the opportunity to achieve a good life given the circumstances they are placed in.<ref>Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice p.53</ref>

== Criticism ==

His most notable critic was Robert Nozick, who in "Anarchy, State and Utopia" paid tribute to Rawls' contributions, but defended a libertarian viewpoint, according to which it is unjust to redistribute the earnings of the rich and successful amongst the poorer elements of society without their consent. Often "Anarchy, State and Utopia" is read as a companion to "A Theory of Justice."

== References ==

<references/>

User talk:JHanson

2009-01-17T19:05:08Z

JHanson: loud and clear

Common fallacies

2009-01-17T18:54:52Z

JHanson: Happy now?

'''Common fallacies''' are arguments that have a [[logical fallacy]] inherent in them, yet are still commonly accepted by people who:

*have difficulties with abstract thinking
*are young students, or are adults unwilling to reconsider opinions they formed as students
*exercise their free will to embrace fallacies without concern for whether they are flawed

Examples of common fallacies are:

*a theory should be accepted until a better alternative is found
*rates of recession, decay or growth observed today are somehow constant for extrapolation backwards in time
*higher taxes must produce more revenue for the government
*fewer guns must reduce the rate of crime
*choice is somehow meaningful regardless of whether it is informed
*human thought can answer any question
*loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
*Ad Hominem: arguments that focus on irrelevant personal attributes of an opponent, hoping to divert attention from the issue being discussed or the content of an opponents argument.
*Guilt By Association: hoping to discredit a person by associating them with generally disliked persons who also hold their views, or rejecting an idea because a generally disliked person accepts it.
*Appeal to Misleading Authority: When a person believes a claim to be true simply because an "authority" says so, when that "authority" is not actually an authority on the subject at hand. For example if somebody believes a claim about chemistry to be true simply because a psychologist says it is true. What constitutes an authority is debatable.
*Wishful Thinking: When a person ignores contradictory evidence to one of their beliefs because they really want their belief to be true. Another kind of wishful thinking is believing something because their are material benefits involved in believing it.

(please add and improve)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Common_fallacies&action=edit
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Common fallacies

2009-01-17T18:48:30Z

JHanson: Why would this be vandalism? They are common fallacies.

'''Common fallacies''' are arguments that have a [[logical fallacy]] inherent in them, yet are still commonly accepted by people who:

*have difficulties with abstract thinking
*are young students, or are adults unwilling to reconsider opinions they formed as students
*exercise their free will to embrace fallacies without concern for whether they are flawed

Examples of common fallacies are:

*a theory should be accepted until a better alternative is found
*rates of recession, decay or growth observed today are somehow constant for extrapolation backwards in time
*higher taxes must produce more revenue for the government
*fewer guns must reduce the rate of crime
*choice is somehow meaningful regardless of whether it is informed
*human thought can answer any question
*loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
*Ad Hominem: arguments that focus on irrelevant personal attributes of an opponent, hoping to divert attention from the issue being discussed or the content of an opponents argument.
*Guilt By Association: hoping to discredit a person by associating them with generally disliked persons who also hold their views, or rejecting an idea because a generally disliked person accepts it.
*The Hitler Card: A version of Guilt by Association where an idea is considered false because Hitler believed it, or a person is discredited because Hitler had a view in common with them.
*Appeal to Misleading Authority: When a person believes a claim to be true simply because an "authority" says so, when that "authority" is not actually an authority on the subject at hand. For example if somebody believes a claim about chemistry to be true simply because a psychologist says it is true. What constitutes an authority is debatable.
*Wishful Thinking: When a person ignores contradictory evidence to one of their beliefs because they really want their belief to be true. Another kind of wishful thinking is believing something because their are material benefits involved in believing it.

(please add and improve)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Common_fallacies&action=edit
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Common fallacies

2009-01-17T18:38:56Z

JHanson:

'''Common fallacies''' are arguments that have a [[logical fallacy]] inherent in them, yet are still commonly accepted by people who:

*have difficulties with abstract thinking
*are young students, or are adults unwilling to reconsider opinions they formed as students
*exercise their free will to embrace fallacies without concern for whether they are flawed

Examples of common fallacies are:

*a theory should be accepted until a better alternative is found
*rates of recession, decay or growth observed today are somehow constant for extrapolation backwards in time
*higher taxes must produce more revenue for the government
*fewer guns must reduce the rate of crime
*choice is somehow meaningful regardless of whether it is informed
*human thought can answer any question
*loaded questions: embodies an assumption that, if answered, indicates an implied agreement. (e.g., Have you stopped beating your wife yet?)
*Ad Hominem: arguments that focus on irrelevant personal attributes of an opponent, hoping to divert attention from the issue being discussed or the content of an opponents argument.
*Guilt By Association: hoping to discredit a person by associating them with generally disliked persons who also hold their views, or rejecting an idea because a generally disliked person accepts it.
*The Hitler Card: A version of Guilt by Association where an idea is considered false because Hitler believed it, or a person is discredited because Hitler had a view in common with them.

(please add and improve)
http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Common_fallacies&action=edit
[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-12-03T18:01:16Z

JHanson: /* My comment */

We should probably divide it up into several issues. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Two that come to mind are religion and birthplace. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:38, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::The number of his gaffes. --[[User:MugiK|MugiK]] 11:39, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::First Black President maybe. It seems that Andy is trying to deny him that title as well. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:Shouldn't the Obama article simply follow the example set by the other articles about politicians both in style and tone? When you compare for example [[John McCain]], [[Bill Clinton]], and [[Barack Obama]], the choice should be clear.
:"Some conservatives" (Who?) say that he's a Muslim, and "some conservatives" (Who?) insist he wasn't born in Hawaii. I'm pretty sure that "some liberals" also insisted on quite a few things when [[George W. Bush]] became President, but you don't see every accusation in the article (judging from a quick look at least). Sarah Palin did drugs, Obama did drugs, but only the Obama article says it (to be fair, at least in Palin's case, it had been legal at the time, but that doesn't make it any better in my eyes). Maybe one standard for all articles would help us more than deciding just how far to move the Obama article away from the standard set by the other articles? --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 11:53, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Yes...Shouldn't all articles (political or not) stick to the evidence for and against, and leave the speculation and editorializing for talk pages and essays?--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 12:37, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Wikipedia has an ignored-when-it-suits policy of not taking sides but presenting the evidence for and against (for example, it takes sides in the creation/evolution debate). Conservapedia, in contrast, is prepared to take a stand on issues; it is concerned with ''truth'' not, (per Wikipedia), ''verifiability''.
::: The issue here as far as I'm concerned is not that Conservapedia is taking a particular view, but that the particular view is without substantiation and even contrary to some of the evidence, and therefore almost certainly untrue.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:24, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Philip, what you've repeatedly deleted (censored) from the [[Obama]] entry is factual information that is undeniably true, such as how he pronounces "Pakistan". Conservapedia never stated that Obama is a Muslim, but presents compelling evidence about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::: And yet various people deny it, so it is simply wrong to say that it's "undeniably" true. And you have consistently failed to actually provide any substantiation of your claims (including the claim of 'censorship'), which strongly suggests that they are false, especially given that counter-arguments have been given. And given that I've already pointed out that the article ''did'' say that "Obama is a Muslim", your claim that it didn't is tantamount to a lie. (NB: I haven't read your latest posts there, so it's possible that you've recently given evidence I haven't yet seen.)

== Admin only? ==

Can I ask why this is the case? It doesn't seem particularly democratic if enfranchisement is restricted. Be wary if you start [[American Revolution|taxing me]]! [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:40, 27 November 2008 (EST)
*Because inclusive discussion has so far failed to net any agreement, see [[talk:Barack Obama]] --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:42, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:Big difference between inclusive "discussion" (yes that page is a mess) and inclusive ''voting''. But I see your point. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::Straw poll, not inclusive discussion. You all get to see who thinks what. Happy Thanksgiving. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation after reading and considering views from both sides. Although the poll was begun with good intentions, there is a danger that it will be misused by Liberals who have already emphatically lost the argument on the Obama talk page to try and wrest the situation back and gain some spurious authority for their plaints. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 27 November 2008 (EST)[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::::Who are these Liberal administrators? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 13:29, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Oh Henry, look and read. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:54, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::: Bugler, are you calling Andy and yourself liberals? Because it's him and you (and co.) who have "emphatically lost the argument". I also find it most ironic that you posted "How about going with what Andy decides? He is the Leader of Conservapedia and has already ruled on the situation..." with the edit comment "''Anti-democratic cliquism''"! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:43, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::It's funny you should say that. I was under the impression that it is those who deny the truth - both about Obama and the nature of discourse on Conservapedia - and who have to rely on censorship, who have lost the argument. Read what Andy says below. We present the facts, pro and con, and let readers make up their own minds. That is the conservative way, and the Conservapedia way, but it clearly is not the way of the Rayment faction. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:41, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::: Given that your side has not actually ''given'' much of an argument, you cannot possibly claim to have won it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)

This is an experiment to see what effect a straw poll will have on, er, 'the situation'. Can't hurt, anyway. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:47, 27 November 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, this arose out of a discussion on my talk page. The problem with making it unrestricted is that doing so attracts all sorts of people, including trolls, socks, parodists, and sycophants. Limiting it to those with x number of edits discriminates against those that edit carefully and in depth in favour of those who can't understand the Preview button or who are making lots of trivial changes. Limiting it to administrators is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 27 November 2008 (EST)
:I see. That seems rather reasonable. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::''Limiting it to Philip and his four imaginary Liberal friends is a very blunt-instrument way of limiting it to those who are theoretically more entitled to have a say.'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Huh? What "four imaginary Liberal friends"? What are you on? This poll page is limited to administrators. The administrators are not imaginary, number more than four, and are not liberal! You didn't get ''anything'' right! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:28, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::Are his four imaginary liberal friends supposed to include Conservative, Ed Poor, and Tim? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 17:17, 28 November 2008 (EST)
Only one of those, Klumpers. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Funny, I thought all of those people existed. Learn something new every day. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::That was a big l "Liberal" in Bugler's post. In Australia a Liberal is a member of a conservative political party. Anyway this is the first hint I've seen that the secret liberal clique is actually imaginary. Excuse me while I go brace myself for another block for disagreeing with Bugler.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:46, 28 November 2008 (EST)

==Great American Tradition==
In the great American democratic tradition, people who were not elected will discuss policy that will be binding on all, while not counting the views of others. {{unsigned|KimSell}}

:Am I really the only non-sysop who thinks this is a good idea? Too often the arguments on talk pages are dragged out to the point of oblivion of reason. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 16:15, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== My comment ==

I've added a comment about his religion. I probably won't be adding anything else, because I haven't looked into the other issues as much.

Contrary to the offensive labelling of me as an "Obama defender", I'm not here to defend Obama, but simply to correct a blatant untruth in calling him a Muslim.

This straw poll is going to be pointless if we don't get a large percentage of the administrators putting comments here, but at the same time, perhaps many don't have too much of an opinion, at least on every issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 27 November 2008 (EST)

: The "blatant untruth" is any claim that Conservapedia asserts definitively that Obama is a Muslim. Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 27 November 2008 (EST)
::: Until Ed Poor changed it recently, that is exactly what it said, which I have already pointed out to you. This looks like "[[liberal denial]]" [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
::''Conservapedia presents the facts and the reader can decide, as with all entries.'' Smething that I have been constantly stating to Philip, only to be met with blank incomprehension and denial. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:38, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I wonder why Ed Poor doesn't block ''you'' for "personal remarks". And your comment is simply a false claim. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:33, 1 December 2008 (EST)
:::::And calling me a liar ''isn't'' a personal remark? You really take the biscuit sometimes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: I never said that calling you a liar wasn't a personal remark. (And I didn't call you a liar.) But again, you don't address the issue, but introduce a red herring. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::The issue is whether or not the statements about Obama are factual and relevant. Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question - Philip is disputing that on the Obama page Conservapedia is presenting facts. If some evidence and justification is given for why the statements on the Obama page are factual and relevant, then that should be the end of the argument. So far Philip feels that such evidence and justification has not been given. To repeat, this has nothing to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''should'' present facts and let the reader decide, and everything to do with whether or not Conservapedia ''is'' presenting the facts and letting the reader decide. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 17:48, 28 November 2008 (EST)
::::"The facts" would include factual evidence to the contrary, as I suggested [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&oldid=571768#Suggestion_for_compromise a week ago], to no avail. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:44, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservapedia presents evidence. We are not arrogant dogmatists; we present evidence and facts and let the reader make up his mind. Of course, there are some minds that are too closed to be made up. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:49, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::: Still repeating the mantra without actually addressing the issue (justifying that the claims ''are'' valid evidence). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:08, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Amazing. Simply amazing. I say ''"Simply saying "Conservapedia presents the facts" begs the question'', Bugler simply says ''Conservapedia presents evidence.'' Is it possible to completely ignore what was just said and spout dogma in a more blatant way?

== Nuetral light? ==

Can we not just portray him as we would a white christian republican president? It almost seems like we are just spreading rumors about our future commander and chief. --[[User:Rcollins|Rcollins03]] 19:34, 28 November 2008 (EST)
:Yes, almost. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 20:02, 28 November 2008 (EST)

== The Poll ==

Ed if you want this to have meaning, then you should solicit all of the active sysops. It would also be good to see that you wish to participate in your own poll. I considered putting in my own thoughts and came back to do so, but apparently I was looking at a different version of the questions. When I looked at it, the reference was to Conservapedia; it has now changed to simply be some conservatives. Shouldn't a straw poll where only admins can respond deal with conservapedia's position and our thoughts on that position? Simply making it an opinion poll doesn't mean much. If it doesn't deal specifically with Conservapedia, then why even limit it to just admins? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 28 November 2008 (EST)

:I did: "Others are free to ask questions on the project talk page." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)

==Non-Sysop Opinions==

I'm adding my two cents. 
*'''Religion:''' I believe Obama is a Christian, but a liberal one who does not take the Bible literally, and who is most comfortable with worship in the Black church. I believe he has been raised in such a way that he is more familiar with the Muslim religion, and with other international things, than most Americans, but this does not make him a Muslim. I believe the concept of Takeyya/Taqiyya is meant for life-threatening situations, similar to the case of Jews in Hitler's Germany who passed as Catholics to survive. The idea that Obama was exposed to Islam as a young child, took it to heart, and then hid it for the next 30 years is not credible to me. I believe that ''any'' president of the US ''needs'' to have an understanding of Islam, as Islamic extremists are a serious threat to Western countries like ours, thus I am glad that our commander-in-chief-elect has chosen to educate himself about this religion.
*'''Birthplace:''' I believe it is most likely that he was born in Hawaii. However, his mother, father, and maternal grandparents, the people most likely to know for sure, are dead. If there was a problem, the Republicans would have found it. We need to let this one go.
*'''Political gaffes:''' I believe that Obama is a human being, just like George Bush and Sarah Palin and me. I personally could not get up there and speak perfectly 100% of the time. Instead of quote-mining and micro-analyzing these sentences, we need to look carefully at context and big-picture to get a sense of what he is all about. When we insist a quote taken out of context means something that the context makes clear was not the intent, we look foolish, and rightfully so.
* In general, as people who are trying to write an encyclopedia, we must insist on the highest standards of documentation/citations/references, and must always make it clear *who* is making these claims, and *what evidence or speculation* the claims are based on. We must be brutally honest about what information we have and where it came from - what we know and what we do not know - what is speculation and what is documented knowledge. Conservatives don't always agree on every detail. In situations where there is conflicting information and conservatives do not agree, we must present both sides (from a conservative point of view). Ultimately, our readers should be given the references to decide for themselves.
--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:57, 29 November 2008 (EST)

:Mom, what you've said here makes more sense than any other person's remarks on this matter, including my own previous remarks! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:46, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== It is time to end this foolish endeavor. Now. ==

*CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. To ask any questions he wants to, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. If people agree, with even a part, they should stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, ''other than being obstinate or having malicious intent'', could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and argument without end begin? The "truth" isn't dependent upon polls, straw or otherwise. Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand ''your idea'' of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?. ''It is time to end this foolish and misguided endeavor.'' --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:18, 1 December 2008 (EST)

::You say: "CP has an owner, it is his absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants."
::However, the point of this project is to show the truth, not one particular person's viewpoint. If Andy wants to have a website that is an outlet to display his personal opinions and make his own political commentary and political attacks, that is absolutely fine by me. However, he is portraying Conservapedia as an encyclopedia, supposedly just the truth instead of political bias. Andy has to make a decision. Either he has an encyclopedia, and starts treating it like one, or else he can have a website dedicated to his personal opinion. Either one is fine by me. However, if he wants to have the latter, then he should advertise it as such. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:48, 1 December 2008 (EST)

:::*Quibbling slightly, I would say rather that the point of this project is to provide trustworthy information. See my essay [[Wikipedia:Truth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:48, 3 December 2008 (EST)

::(Edit Conflict with CPAdmin1) I am not sure that it is my place to answer you, TK, but I feel some things must be said. Andrew Schlafly is undoubtedly the owner of this website. He does have the absolute right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. He does have the right to ask any questions, to speculate as to Obama's motives and/or background. But he does not have the right to post these viewpoints as facts. He is not infallible. No one is. To leave the truth to any one person's judgement, even if it is Mr. Schlafly's judgement, is faulty.

::You are also absolutely correct in that truth is not dependent upon polls, or "mobocracy" either. But these people who came up with the idea of a straw poll have seen no other way to get their point across. Their point is that any encyclopedic website should treat logic as king. Truth is not necessarily obtainable, but fact is. That is what Conservapedia should strive for: fact. And before anyone says that treating logic as king is atheistic or liberal, do not be too literal, because I hold other, more important things, like God and my faith, above logic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 00:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::What Tim and JArneal have said I concur with. And point out that those opposing us continually misrepresent the situation, by claiming "censorship", the "right to decide what viewpoint to put", etc. Andy has never explicitly claimed that his viewpoint is sacrosanct (although that does seem to be implicit, and that view is supported by various people claiming as much; obviously they understand the thinking behind his actions also), and in fact Andy specifically said to me that truth is decided by logic and evidence. He didn't say that it's decided by what he thinks. But rather than argue logic and evidence, Andy, Bugler, and TK, in particular, are trying to silence the logic and evidence by claiming "censorship" (but never justifying that claim), the right to a viewpoint, that that it's "undeniable" (patently false), that this is supposedly all about how things are done on Wikipedia, and other red herrings that ''don't actually provide logic and evidence''! In doing so, they effectively demonstrate that they are wrong, as providing logically fallacious arguments is the resort of those that don't have good arguments! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Philip, Tim, JArneal, what I said was, in addition to the parts you addressed is:

<blockquote>
'''"Since Conservapedia has officially eschewed a "mobocracy" what in the world is going on here? Can you gentlemen please take this where it belongs, to email? And yes, Philip, I understand your idea of the wiki format is different from what I think, what Andy thinks, what your fellow Administrators think. But you and Tim have always known that from the very beginning. It isn't like it was sprung on you by surprise, is it?"'''
</blockquote>

:::Yes, I realize you disagree. And I also realize you wouldn't accept that what you claim Andy (and others) are doing, is exactly what you (and others) did to me, at one time. No proof presented to me, nothing. No right to confront accusers, etc. But it seems to me you have a double standard, depending upon the situation, and if you agree or disagree with it. Can you, Philip, disagree with your employer, or their decisions about schedules? Are you allowed to argue publicly about cut-backs? I don't think so. Taking the job of an Admin, you by necessity forfeit certain rights others have. I think your claim of being able to wear "two hats", be at one turn an Admin, and as it suits you, an editor of equal standing with the majority of CP users, is a fallacy. I am not one of those clamoring for your removal, odd as that might seem to some. I am, however, looking for a resolution, and an end to this public family squabble short of blocking and removal as an Administrator. Someone has to give. IMO, those "someones" should be those who Andy has given his trust to, and endowed them with special rights others don't have, out of common courtesy. Can you guys please take this to email? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:17, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Again, your analogy fails. If this was a project for Andy's purposes, and Andy's opinion, then it might hold some water. However the object is supposedly advancing the cause of truth. Therefore, truth should come before Andy's opinion, which is all that the Obama thing has become. Also for your analogy of an employer there are 2 definite differences. For one, an employee is bound to do the work of the employer because he is under contract, and being payed to do it. CP is a volunteer project, so editors should have more freedom. Secondly, as I pointed out already, CP is about truth, not about Andy, A business is about making money for the owner/shareholders, therefore all work is done to further their purposes. so your analogy fails. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 07:48, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::: TK, you haven't shown how a discussion about article content "belongs" in e-mail, I reject that it does, and I've seen nobody but you expecting that.
:::: Regarding what I "did" to you, you are wrong. You didn't want to see the proof, and you had every opportunity to confront accusers (and certainly criticised me heavily). Yes, I can disagree with my employers about schedules, and often do, but as Tim said, the situation is not the same, if for no other reason than we are talking about truth here.
:::: I fail to see how wearing two hats is "forfeit[ing] certain rights".
:::: If someone should "give", then why shouldn't it be those who are inserting POV as fact, calling others names, and failing to support their claims?
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)

This project is led by Andy, and leadership is necessary. Where disputes occur, he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth. It is our duty to display loyalty to and respect for his judgement. What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant (in claiming for yourself the right to adjudicate) and wrong (the 'arguments' put forward by you and your clique hold less water than a broken sieve), but disloyal and subversive. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:56, 2 December 2008 (EST)
: "''...he is rightly the arbiter of what constitutes truth...''": I don't know how many times I've both denied this and also pointed out that not even Andy claims this, but here you go, repeating this mantra yet again, but still not substantiating your claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:30, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::There has to be an ultimate arbiter in the case of the endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting, and Andy is the Leader of this project. If not him, then who? Certainly not this mysterious clique of yours, and we are most definitely not a mobocracy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:37, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::And as for TK's comments, he is quite correct. There is such a thing as 'cabinet responsibility'. Be an administrator, or enjoy playing disloyal games (and take the consequences), but not both. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::: You know, hidden away in that comment there is actually a decent question (which I have an answer for), but until and unless you retract the unjustified slurs associated with it, you don't deserve an answer. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::'Injured feelings' make such a useful shield when one is on the ropes! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Personal remarks ==

I am getting weary of reading so many personal remarks:

*didn't want to see the proof
*don't deserve an answer
*enjoy playing disloyal games
*exactly what you and others did to me
*retract the unjustified slurs
*this mysterious clique of yours
*trying to silence the logic and evidence

Now I am not suggesting we stop making important policy suggestions; just that we can do so in a more polite way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: You missed a few, Ed:
:* you have a double standard
:* What you are doing, Tim, is not only arrogant ... but disloyal and subversive.
:* endless sterile arguments of the kind that you have been fomenting
: And that's just from posts in this section. I've yet to see you take anybody to task for labelling me "liberal".
: But the point remains, as I have pointed out before, that sometimes personal remarks are justified. I'd also dispute that "retract the unjustified slurs" is a personal remark. Rather, it's a justifiable request to retract comments that are both slurs and unjustified.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

== Compromise proposals ==

:This is getting nowhere, why not a deal? Why not something along the lines of: Andy, TK, Bugler and their posse can keep the article as they like it now until Obama is sworn into office. If Obama is sworn in on the Koran then keep the article, if he is sworn in on the Bible, then relegate the accusations/evidence of him being islamic to a lower part of the article and include some counter evidence provided by PJR, conservative, Tim and their posse. Or something along those lines, or some kind of deal. Because a compromise seems to me to be the only way forward that can potentially please both sides of this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:: An interesting thought. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 19:04, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::As the saying goes, "very interesting, but a term that Ed Poor would rightly declare provocative". The scenario is incredible. If he is Muslim, and has been hiding it, he would hardly 'come out' at his inauguration. If he is not, he wouldn't use a Koran anyway. The likelihood - nay, certainty - that he won't use a Koran proves precisely zero. And we - that is, the 'posse' - are already compromising. It is the invisible clique that wishes to censor opposing opinion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:39, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Ok, that's fine, that's why I added "Or something along those lines". If you don't like those parameters then suggest others. The reason I'm putting this idea forward is that I have seen no attempt at compromise yet and I thought it might be worthwhile. Surely it would be better to come to an arrangement that, while not making the Obama article ideal for either side, would avoid the risk of long term rifts that could damage the future of conservapedia. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 19:46, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::*[http://www.amazon.com/Day-Reckoning-Ideology-Tearing-America/dp/0312376960 The Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, and Greed Are Tearing America Apart] I don't see ''anything good coming from all this'', but then I repeat myself. It will be the doing of the ''False Prophet'' and its assembled Demons, as to the next step. Bolly, I for one, appreciate your effort at some sort of compromise, but I am afraid that Rubicon was crossed long ago, with continued reverts and argument without end. But I live with hope! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:52, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::::I, too, appreciate Bolly's efforts. The Blue Beret, honestly worn, is not dishonourable headgear. But the solution here, the only acceptable compromise, is for the 'clique' to cease their attempts at absolutist censorship and to accept compromise themselves. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 19:57, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: You have ''still'' not justified the claim of "censorship", despite being called on to do so. As for compromise, see my comments below. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::In that case, regardless of whether 'the clique' agree's with your assessment Bugler, could one of them come forward and offer a potential compromise? Once that's done, we can always debate the terms etc. but the only way forward is a sign that both sides are willing to talk. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:00, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::When side A wishes to present '''both''' sides of an argument, and side B wishes to censor all disagreement with its own view, the only possible compromise is for side B to accept the side A position. Anthing else is capitulationism, defeatism and appeasement. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:03, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::: To me, it sounds like I'm on side A and you're on side B. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::Do you consider me part of that clique, Bugler? Because I am very opposed to censorship. I just don't want to see opinions posted as facts! I believe that the articles here should be concerned only with the facts, and not opinions. However, I would be willing to compromise. I propose that all opinions and speculations about a topic be placed in a section titled "Opinions" (or something similar) in the article for that topic. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:06, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact. It is the 'clique' that is suggesting, very wrongly, that it is. We in the 'posse' just wish to see the two schools of thought presented with equal esteem, something which seems to stick in the craw of the cliquists, and to provoke them to insulting and intemperate language. I don't see you as connected with the clique, btw. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:10, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Much of it has been and still ''is'' posted as established fact. The article until recently said unambiguously "Obama is a Muslim", and it still says that Obama uses the "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan. And there's been no evidence of "the two schools of thought [being] presented with equal esteem". Where, for example, is there even the slightest hint that there is no such thing as a "Muslim pronunciation" of Pakistan? As for insulting and intemperate language, try looking in a mirror. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:14, 2 December 2008 (EST)

[unindent] Ok another suggestion: It seems, from my viewpoint, that the Obama article doesn't list many objections that the clique (that's how I'm going to refer to you guys from now on) have proposed. Why not keep the list of proof that the posse has assembled and then underneath (or above or wherever can be agreed is the best place for it) allow the clique to have a list of objections or counterclaims to the above evidence. So that way, the list is not censored and both sections receive the same layout and attention to detail etc. so they are truly equal. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)

: I much admire your efforts, Bolly, but I think that that is what talk pages are for...--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:20, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::Sure, if thats where you think this should go, I only posted here because this was supposed to be a place for resolving the issues that some have with the Obama page. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 20:25, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::Of course. Though I wish you luck in trying to get your ideas across to Philip and his acolytes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 20:29, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::Please, Bugler, stop being divisive by labeling groups as 'cliques'. You said that "prime facie evidence is posted as such, not as established fact." You are ''almost'' correct in saying this (I will get to that later), but much of this speculation (we seem to have agreed it is speculation) comes before many undisputed facts about Barack Obama. This is the same as saying these opinions are more important than these facts. Also, the title of the section most opposed by many users, "Barack Obama will likely be the First Muslim President," is an opinion. The opinions should be put at the bottom of the page, in order to promote the importance of undisputed facts. Surely you could agree to this. I have offered multiple compromises now. Please consider them.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 20:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

*I believe the "clique" remark was made by Bolly, the editor who proposed a compromise above. Does everyone need a little cooling off period? I also remind others that it isn't Bugler's decision, it is Andy's. Take a breath, everyone....have a soothing beverage! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:02, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:Yeh my bad! I just used the terms 'clique' and 'posse' to differentiate the two groups, there was absolutely no offence intended at all and I'm more then happy to change either of the names for sake of ease. But I second TK, lets all take a deep breath in and out, and move on. A lot of unpleasantness has gone before in this, why not, purely in the interests of the project, drop all of these name callings and so on. Let's just draw a line through the above and start with a clean slate. Sound good? --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:05, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::To Bolly's defense, Bugler was the first to use the term "clique" in this discussion. And I would gladly be discussing this with Mr. Schlafly if he would participate in this conversation.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:07, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::And it was Bolly who first used the term 'posse'. These are just convenient shorthands; but use the terms 'Team C' and Team P' if you consider it preferable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:::: Bolly is ''using'' them as convenient shorthands, but one of them didn't start that way. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:01, 3 December 2008 (EST)

=== My response to compromise proposal ===

I thank Bolly for attempting to find a compromise. I've never been one to accept compromising the truth with a lie, but this situation is not (as a whole) as black and white as that, so I'm prepared to consider suggestions. However, I would make the following points:
* Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere.
* I consider my actions and argument so far to already be a huge compromise.
** I, along with most others (including administrators) who have expressed disagreement with the article, would like to see the entire section about Obama being a Muslim removed, along with other improvements. (For example, the statement that Obama referred to the "57 states" is in there as an "insight", not as a blooper.)
** That doesn't mean that there may not be a few valid points in that section that could be kept; just that that section as a whole should not be there.
** Even if that section was to be kept, it should not be given such prominence, including above the table of contents.
** Nevertheless, all I have tried to do ''so far'' is remove three spurious claims from that section. Only removing three spurious claims when I believe the section as a whole should be removed already is in effect a massive compromise. Yet the other side refuses to even accept ''that'' much! And at the same time they have the gall to accuse ''us'' of not accepting compromise!
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:33, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:What I'm seeing is that both sides have several points they seem willing to compromise on and some they simply won't. For example, the posse is adamant that the "Obama will likely be the first muslim president" is important and relavent and they aren't going to let it be removed. On the other hand, maybe they will agree to move the section to the first slot underneath the contents box and just have a mention of the accusations in the top section. Then a series of counterclaims can be added by the clique underneath the current list. To me, that seems like a decent compromise that, while not making everyone happy, will at least help to allieviate some of the tension. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:40, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::He'll be the first Muslim president in about as precisely a fashion as Bill Clinton was the [[first black president]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:50, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Ed, I understand you're position and your frustration, but I heard a saying once that "a good compromise is one that leaves everyone angry". The whole point of compromise is that you don't get everything you think you should, and the other side gets the same. The posse aren't going to just let their list be deleted. So instead, you might have to settle for it being moved and adding counter evidence. "let the reader decide" to quote several editors in this debate. --[[User:Bolly|Bolly]] 21:53, 2 December 2008 (EST)

:::Thank you Ed, for your participation in this conversation. The more sysops we have talking about this the better. And if someone who likes the current Obama article would propose a compromise, that would be appreciated, I'm sure. We need to start moving toward an ultimate compromise, or all of this is useless.--'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]''' '' 21:58, 2 December 2008 (EST)

::::Philip said: ''Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere''. Now does he mean, 'unless Andy cuts this Gordian knot'? Well, he has. Andy has made his views quite clear, and these are to support the status quo '''which is a compromise''': none of the points that Philip rages against are presented as facts, just as evidence to be considered. Given Philip's impenitent and rebellious behaviour, one is tempted to interpret ''Unless Andy agrees with a compromise, this is going nowhere'' as ''Unless Andy does as I say'', which is totally unacceptable. Andy is the Leader of Conservapedia, and his views should be respected as those of teh ultimate arbiter. For Philip to carry on and on and on with this sterile debate is damaging Conservapedia, and leads one to question his motives in doing so. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:40, 3 December 2008 (EST)

::::: "''...which is a compromise...''": Huh? How is that a "compromise"?
::::: "''...none of the points that Philip rages against are presented as facts...''": Absolutely false, as I've already pointed out.
::::: "''... one is tempted to interpret [Philip's comment] as ''Unless Andy does as I say'', which is totally unacceptable.''": Which totally ignores that it's not just ''my'' opinion, but that of many people including senior administrators, as has been repeatedly pointed out, but you keep ignoring or misrepresenting.
::::: "''For Philip to carry on and on and on with this sterile debate is damaging Conservapedia...''": No, making false claims about Obama is damaging Conservapedia.
::::: "''Andy is the Leader of Conservapedia, and his views should be respected ...''": I haven't mentioned this yet, but this is one of the most hypocritical claims in this issue. The hypocrisy is in decrying me for not respecting the leader, whilst the article grossly disrespects the leader-elect of the people posting this rubbish! (And no, it is not just fair criticism, which I don't have a problem with; it goes far beyond that.)
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::::You are outdoing yourself in the personal remarks today, Philip, both in this section and in your edit summary. As for the 'points' you make, I'm too bored to try and explain to you yet again, so, as TK suggests, will just leave you to crow away like a cockerel on a dunghill. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:09, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::::: Is that a promise? To stay out of this discussion?? Oh please let it be so! As for personal remarks, that edit comment is apt. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:15, 3 December 2008 (EST)
::::::::Ah, [[Last wordism]]!. It just gets better and better. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:19, 3 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Did you really just block somebody and then reply accusing him of last wordism? [[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 10:08, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== "You Say Tomato, I Say Tomatoe; Let's Call The Whole Thing Off!" ==

So far as many are concerned, this whole "debate", "argument" or "discussion" is pretty much moot. Andy has stated his reasoning, and as the 'Editor in Chief' of Conservapedia, that's it. People can continue to make this some kind of weird parlor game, an endless debating society, some sort of faux Wikipedia tribunal or commission if they want...

OR we can just simply ignore this bogus "issue" and leave the ''insurrectionists'' to scream into the wind. There is no argument without someone to argue with, right? Silly and petty disputes, generated merely to satisfy the vain tyranny of someone who constantly demands to be right, never accepts any logical thought he doesn't agree with, are a giant time waster. The United Nations, with its endless talk, talk, talk is not something we aspire to emulate here.

Wikipedia has countless thousands of pages of just such arguments stored away, and if this is someone's idea of being productive -- engaging in circular, repetitive and seemingly endless talk -- enjoy yourselves! My suggestion is that we now call the game, and ignore the people with closed minds, who are more interested in liberal political correctness, demanding to be made "right", demanding to be King of the Hill. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 05:24, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:Since when is the issue "bogus"? Since you decreed it to be so? I also note that this particular page, which I've said did not have much merit, was started by a senior administrator, and one you consider a friend. So you're rejecting ''his'' attempts now?
:"''Andy has stated his reasoning, and as the 'Editor in Chief' of Conservapedia, that's it.''": So you concur that Andy simply decides encyclopaedia article content by decree, regardless of the evidence and logic (Andy's own requirements for determining truth) and the views of senior administrators? Andy himself has never claimed that, but I think that it's very telling that his supporters in this, such as you and Bugler, can see his actions for what they are, deciding truth by his opinion.
:"''...vain tyranny of someone who constantly demands to be right, never accepts any logical thought he doesn't agree with...''": I know who that description fits, and it ain't me.
:"''My suggestion is that we now call the game, and ignore the people with closed minds, who are more interested in liberal political correctness, demanding to be made "right", demanding to be King of the Hill.''": So now you're suggesting that we just ''ignore'' Andy? Or, if you'd prefer a serious comment, that's the fallacious argument of begging the question.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:12, 3 December 2008 (EST)

In a way, TK's right though... pages like this never really accomplish anyhting. CP has a sort of "go argue on the talk page because you're easier to ignore there and we can 90/10 block you if you are persistent" policy. On some issues it really comes down to what Andy thinks and anyone can argue 'til they're blue in the face w/ out getting anything changed. I've washed my hands of the Barack Obama article because I realize it probably won't ever change. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 11:10, 3 December 2008 (EST)

== Change ==

Mark my words, the only way Andy will change his mind is if Tim, Phil, and Cons all quit, and then he'll only change his mind when, after a few months, he realized that they were the only honest editors he had.-[[User:JudahB|JudahB]] 11:35, 3 December 2008 (EST)

:Hey! I'm honest. I'm not very interested in this endless discussion though.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:36, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Paul Krugman

2008-11-30T18:46:20Z

JHanson: not much justification for these being in the article

'''Paul Krugman''' (born February 28, 1953) is the 2008 Nobel [[Economics|Economic]] Prize-winner (Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences). He is an American [[professor]] at [[Princeton University]] and a [[liberal]] Op-Ed columnist for [[The New York Times]].

Krugman is the author of several books; the best known "''The Conscience of a Liberal (October 2007)''".

"I think we've learned this when we see Joe Stiglitz writing," Krugman said, referring to the winner of the economics Nobel in 2001. "I haven't noticed him getting an easy time. People just say, 'Sure, he's a great Nobel laureate and he's very smart, but he still doesn't know what he's talking about in this situation.' I'm sure I'll get the same thing." <ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/13/america/13nobel.php</ref>
}}

== See also ==

''NPR’s Siegel Helps Krugman Lie Human Events''

''Siegel’s interview of Paul Krugman was "a liberal love fest of junk economics and revisionist political history. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, 'You are entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.'"'' [[Main Page/Previous Conservapedia Breaking News/Archives/October 2007]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22787 NPR’s Siegel Helps Krugman Lie]
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/kts200406080847.asp Ocialist-say Economics]

== References ==
<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Krugman, Paul}}

[[Category:Economists]]
[[Category:Nobel laureates in Economics]]

Conservapedia talk:Obama straw poll

2008-11-28T22:48:36Z

JHanson:

Bolshevik

2008-11-26T20:31:02Z

JHanson:

The '''Bolsheviks''' were a [[communist]] political faction and party in the [[Russian Empire]] that eventually successfully overthrew the [[Kerensky Provisional Government]] in the 1917 Russian [[October Revolution]] under the leadership of [[Vladimir Lenin]].

The Bolsheviks arose from a 1903 factional schism in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, resulting in disagreement between Lenin and Julius Martov about the future of the party. Those who followed Lenin soon declared themselves the Bolsheviks (derived from the Russian for 'majority') while Martov's followers were termed [[Mensheviks]] ('minority'). In 1912, the Bolsheviks split entirely from the Mensheviks, forming their own political party, which became the driving force behind the 1918 [[Russian Revolution|revolution]]. Despite their name, the Bolsheviks were a much smaller and less influential party than the Mensheviks until the second half of 1917.

[[category:Political Parties]]
[[Category:Russia]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Bolshevik

2008-11-26T20:30:37Z

JHanson:

The '''Bolsheviks''' were a [[communist]] political faction and party in the [[Russian Empire]] that eventually successfully overthrew the [[Kerensky Provisional Government]] in the 1917 Russian [[October Revolution]] under the leadership of [[Vladimir Lenin]].

The Bolsheviks arose from a 1903 factional schism in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, resulting in disagreement between Lenin and Julius Martov about the future of the party. Those who followed Lenin soon declared themselves the Bolsheviks (derived from the Russian for 'majority') while Martov's followers were termed [[Mensheviks]] ('minority'). In 1912, the Bolsheviks split entirely from the Mensheviks, forming their own political party, which became the driving force behind the 1918 [[Russian Revolution|revolution]]. Despite their name, the Bolsheviks were a much smaller and less influential party until the second half of 1917.

[[category:Political Parties]]
[[Category:Russia]]
[[Category:Communism]]

Michael Ruse

2008-11-25T22:31:40Z

JHanson: Undo revision 568013 by RodWeathers (Talk) What exactly is being censored?

'''Michael Ruse''' is a [[Canadian]] [[philosopher]] and [[historian of science]].

He is known for his work on the history of evolutionary theory and creationism, including such books as [[The Darwinian Revolution]].
Ruse has claimed that [[Christian]] and [[Darwinian]] beliefs can co-exist. However, he has also been involved in court cases to ban the teaching of [[creationism]] and [[intelligent design]] in classrooms, and is a devout atheist.

{{stub}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ruse, Michael}}
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Historians]]

Liberal totalitarianism

2008-11-25T22:23:07Z

JHanson:

{{merge|liberal censorship}}
'''''Liberal Totalitarianism''''' refers to [[liberal]] attempts to mute all opposition to liberal [[beliefs]].

Liberals attempt to silence all criticism of their ideology by slandering [[conservatives]] and other opponents as [[racist]], [[reactionary]], legally enforce [[political correctness]], and establish legislation making many forms of religious speech illegal under misnamed [[hate speech]] laws. This is despite the fact that liberal (defined partly as "open-minded or tolerant...not bound by authoritarianism..."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref><ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal</ref>) and totalitarian (partly defined as "authoritarian...political and cultural expression is suppressed"<ref>http://www.thefreedictionary.com/totalitarianism</ref><ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/totalitarianism</ref>) are mutually exclusive characteristics of a government, group or individual.

These attempts to remove first amendment rights (see [[Fairness Doctrine]]), along with [[gun control]] and the outlawing of [[creation science]] and even [[homeschooling]], have led many critics to note the parallel between the modern liberal movement and 20th century [[totalitarian]] regimes.<ref>Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning"</ref><ref>Edmund Burke Institute [http://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org/documents/The_Just_Cause_Liberal_Totalitarianism.pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/p_hollrah/06262007.htm The Nazification of the American Left], Paul R. Hollrah, ''New Media Journal'', June 26, 2007.</ref>

Georgia Congressman [[Paul Broun]] astutely noted that [[Barack Hussein Obama]] may seek to establish a [[Marxist]] [[dictatorship]] in the United States.<ref>http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iRxZox4GFoIweckPDP1oRhKBlHOwD94CDDM80</ref>

== See Also ==
* [[Hate Speech]]

==References==
<References/>

[[category:liberalism]]
{{liberalism}}

Michael Ruse

2008-11-24T19:49:29Z

JHanson: removed conjecture

'''Michael Ruse''' is a [[Canadian]] [[philosopher]] and [[historian of science]].

He is known for his work on the history of evolutionary theory and creationism, including such books as [[The Darwinian Revolution]].
Ruse has claimed that [[Christian]] and [[Darwinian]] beliefs can co-exist. However, he has also been involved in court cases to ban the teaching of [[creationism]] and [[intelligent design]] in classrooms.

{{stub}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Ruse, Michael}}
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Historians]]

Nut (fastener)

2008-11-23T23:12:19Z

JHanson:

[[image:wingnut.jpg|thumb|A wingnut is a specialized nut designed to be easily tightened and loosened by hand]]
A "nut" is also a piece of [[fastener|fastening]] [[hardware]] which is used in conjunction with a [[bolt]] or other male threaded fastener (such as a [[stud]]).

Anne Rice

2008-11-23T00:07:44Z

JHanson: Conjecture removed

[[Image:072706-ar.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Anne Rice''' (b. October 4, 1941) left Catholicism to become an [[atheist]].<ref>“I broke with my faith in a tragic way, really, for me. It was a tragic and sad thing. And I was never happy until I went back thirty-eight years later.” [http://radio.nationalreview.com/betweenthecovers/post/?q=Y2M2ZGE1OTZlYTU0YzExYjNlYTVhZjY2ZDVjZGI4YzM=]</ref> She wrote ''Interview With The Vampire'' which was made into a movie with Tom Cruise. She also wrote pornographic novels<ref>Ramsland describes Rice's decision to write S&M erotica under two pseudonyms. [http://trashotron.com/agony/reviews/ramsland-prism_of_the_night.htm Ramsfield biography] </ref>
which are still in print.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:authors]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-19T23:56:33Z

JHanson: /* Talking with enemies */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.--[[user:Rpond|Rpond]]

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Liberal is not an ad hominem, it's a statement of your political views (whether accurate or not), which is completely valid to make in a political arena such as this. Calling someone sarcastic, or making sarcastic remarks about how they live is certainly ad hominem. My two cents--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:27, 19 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: The lottery example was valid. Apart from the fact that not every lottery ''does'' have a winner (the prize then jackpots to the following draw), the point is that the 100% certainty (every lottery has a winner) applies to the lottery as a whole, whereas the 1 in 20 million odds applies to any ''given'' individual. The issue here is about a ''given'' individual, Barack Obama.
:: I hope that you are asking that last question ("What's all the fuss about") to Andy, as he is the one insisting on the claim against almost everybody else other than a few acolytes.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:20, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::I like maths and logic, so good section. This isn't arguing for the prosecution error, but just about statistical sampling. I suppose you could ask how many muslims convert, but it might be more accurate to ask how many American born muslims convert, or how many muslims that have had a Christian baptism have genuinely converted (I hope there's a special place in hell for those that were faking their baptism)--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:45, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::In [[Dante's Inferno]], I don't think there is. Any kind of liar goes to the bottom of the eighth circle though. I wonder whether covert apostacy was known in Dante's time.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::::MylesP, have you been reading [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/0007240198/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227138689&sr=8-1 Bad Science?]

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"Facts" as in already repeatedly proven falsehoods such as Obama being a Muslim? This page is filled with outright lies. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

If you are going to repeat a proven lie, you shouldn't be surprised when people call you on it-[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
: Bugler, I will concede that point. Instead I'll say that Andy's point that this was a response to was rather unclear as to its aim, and I was reading his comments differently.
: However, I will add another response to your previous post. You say that "the whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he can't possibly be a Moslem." The problem with this claim of yours is that it's ''not'' the way the argument is being used. That is, the arguments are not being used to ''oppose'' the claim that he couldn't possibly be a Muslim; the arguments are being used to ''support'' the claim that he ''is'' a Muslim. If they were being used the way that you say, then at least some of them would have some legitimacy. But being used the way they are is invalid.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: The problem, Ed, is that these things have already been discussed at length. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: They are ''not'' "unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism". When you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, I have repeatedly pointed out that it is ''not'' censorship. Why do you keep repeating that false claim? Also, I have explained ''why'' the claims are "disliked", why do you falsely say that the reasons are unknown? As I said to Bugler above, when you stoop to misrepresenting the situation, it shows that your argument is shaky. And the evidence is not only not compelling, some of it is false and some is logically fallacious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Andy, you're misunderstanding "prosecutorial discretion." You're right that policemen have the right to decide which crimes to prosecute, but if they differentially allow white criminals to get away with murder, and seek the death penalty for black shoplifters, it would give rise to a disparate impact lawsuit and be illegitimate, racist, and wrong. We're arguing that your actions here are closer to abuse of prosecutorial discretion to kick out your enemies, than to the case of using prosecutorial discretion to preserve resources.
::::::It strikes me that what you're missing is the difference between "content neutral" and "viewpoint discrimination." Take a course in the First Amendment, or read a book on it; it might help your understanding of the word "censorship," too.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Actually, TK, I couldn't disagree with any of your comments, but for this one - "the truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no?". That's certainly true when it comes to matters of dogma or belief - it's true, we might never agree on what is "true". But there is much here on Conservapedia that is ''not'' dogma-related, and is simply factually untrue. To take this particular article as an example, might I ask if you believe the Muslim-related material might not be better presented if gathered into one section, entitled "Speculation on Obama's Muslim beliefs", instead of being scattershot throughout the article, unreferenced, misquoted, and asserted with no validity. That would actually HELP this debate, yet is certain to be disallowed under a threat of "we don't hide the truth here", yet who's truth is that? And my mere suggestion of disagreement with this thesis likely marks me as a candidate for a ban. Certainly it's likely that if I answer one more time in this reasonable debate with you, I will likely be blocked by ASchalfly, Bugler or others - simply for debating. But how else would I debate my suggestion - the article is locked? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 14:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Perhaps worth pointing out here that FredX did indeed, as he had predicted, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AFredX&year=&month=-1 receive a 90/10 ban] while trying to debate the content of this article. I imagine he rests his case. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:25, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)
Well? Am I understood now? Is the section going to be removed? [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 18:56, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::Thanks. Here is a quote "If there is an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process of law, that threatens my civil liberties."--Barack Obama, 2004 DNC speech. (Yes, it is what some would call a quote mine, but it is a direct quote of a complete sentence.) That being said, I agree with others that the article would be better if it were to document the fact that many people are speculating about whehter or not Barack Obama is a Muslim, including adding their reasoning. But trying to make a case that he is a Muslim in this article isn't turning out too well in my opinion. It's good to see some changes have been made. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 22:50, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for compromise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Not a sysop, but every now and then I have a good idea ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::I think this is a very sensible idea. I don't agree with any of the arguments that Obama is a Muslim, but obviously a few people here are determined to cling to them, so including the counterarguments as well would be a good way to balance this part of the article & end the conflicts over this. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::Also, if the argument would take up a great deal of the article, it could be moved to a separate page. What's the policy on linking to debates from regular pages? I know there are two Obama/Muslim debates going, and I think linking to them from the article might not be a bad idea. [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 13:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::(/signed) Totally agree, if all the arguments are presented then anyone who is open minded can make up their own mind. Those with closed minds won't be convinced either way, no matter what arguments are presented..--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 13:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:''"Set forth your "evidence" here first, for consideration. Self-serving statements by politicians don't carry much weight here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)"''[http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7882247&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.11.1 as required]. This was one source found in 5 minutes work and if anyone doubts the quality of the source [http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/AboutUs?pageId=5.1 please look here]. This is just a single source found at 00:25am after being out all night doing charity work. As I find others I will post. I will also point out that I do not consider this, or subsequent evidence put forth, as 'talk' as I am responding to a direct request for information by the creator of this site--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Another, same conditions, contributor makes clear that he thinks that Obama is at best [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/ a deist], at worst an atheist, but at no point offers an argument for Obama being of an Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:31, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:As above, [http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/obama_religion_attacked.html 'Minnery, who served as Dobson's interlocutor on the program yesterday said during the broadcast that Obama was "deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology."'] Again, at best the argument says that Obama is a deist, at worst is trying to set up his own sect of 'christianity', but no evidence to show that Obama is of Islamic faith.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And again, [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317031,00.html "....to baseless e-mailed rumors that he is a Muslim and poses a threat to the security of the United States."]--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Logic argument: I believe it has been mentioned that Obama may be a Muslim because of his lack of dancing or dancing skills. If that belief is true then every man lives in the UK and is either i) not out of his head on 'e' or ii) over the age of 25 is muslim, as no man in the UK that does not fit the two previous definitions ''ever'' dances seriously with full use of his arms, at least, not outside of ballroom dancing. I admitted that is observational evidence, not just of myself but numerous others, but observational evidence is still evidence, and considerably better than suppostition and hearsay, two lower classes of 'evidence' ('that is which is seen').--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:More. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/22/AR2007012201322.html Washington Post, but hey, ''I'm'' not going to be the person who raises objections as to their factual accuracies], I'll leave that to the lawyers, my knowledge of libel laws just ain't that good. Of course, there are always those that will argue on the point of "Classes in Islam are offered to the predominantly Muslim students at the school....", but then that requires proving that Obama was a Muslim with a level of evidence above supposition and hearsay.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 19:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:And now it is 01:00 and I need my sleep. Page 2 of Google tomorrow.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:00, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Since CP is the Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia it is, while other points of view should be included, it is wrong to bully it into providing the equivalent of "equal time" to those who are not Christian and/or Conservative. Those who disagree should stop wasting time with this and move on to places that are more accommodating of [[liberal deceit]], Atheist [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:56, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:You are absolutely right. This is the Christian encyclopedia, at least one of the online ones. That means the Word is God, and God is truth. Let no argument be hidden, for that is the path of the Fallen, the jealous and the wicked. For those with God are armoured with Faith and armed with the Truth and are truly capable of determining the gleanings of Truth from argument and do not need protection, for the Word that is Truth guides their path--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 20:05, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Homosexuality ==

The story is starting to spread that Obama is a homosexual or bisexual and may have been involved in the deaths of some of his past lovers<ref>http://chgocutie.blogspot.com/2007/12/nathaniel-nate-spencer-tucc-sanctuary.html</ref>. In shades of a Vince Foster type scandal I'm wondering if any mention of this development should go into the main page. Larry Sinclair<ref>http://larrysinclair0926.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/chicago-packet.pdf</ref> was the initial source, but evidence seems to be mounting<ref>http://redinktexas.blogspot.com/2008/07/larry-sinclair-obamas-bad-penny.html</ref> that Obama has a gay past he's been hiding.

== A better approach to highlighting Obama's negatives - Highlight More Best Arguments against Obama vs. the throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall approach ==

Instead of the article focusing more on claims that are certainly not undisputable (Obama being a Muslim) I think the article could do a better job of pointing out the negative things about Obama that have a much higher degree of certainty.

Examples of things which could be highlighted more:

1. Other than a footnote which few people will read, does the article highlight sufficiently '''his extremely liberal voting record''' as a Senator?[http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/] Perhaps, some of his more extreme votes could be highlighted.

2. There is the '''Obama/infantcide''' issue which might be highlighted more if it is mentioned or mentioned if it is not currently mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRpIf2F9NA and http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

===Consequences of the current state of the article===

It seems like the article takes a throw a lot of negative spaghetti against the wall and hopefully some sticks approach. That is not how you create a compelling article in terms of when it highlights some of the negative aspects about Obama. Dubious claims in the article make the valid claims less prominent. Also, it is not surprising that the Obama article is not ranked high by the search engines like the Conservapedia [[Bill Clinton]] article is (I have not read the Bill Clinton article but I suspect it is better than the Obama article. I do know that Conservapedia's Bill Clinton article is ranked #6 by Google). I think that is because it is difficult to get conservatives to link to the article and the article is easily dismissed by liberals and they do not see it as a threat. If you want the article to be informative and influential any dubious claims have to be weeded out and the legitimate matters have to be highlighted more. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== First Black President? ==

Should we have an article on the [[First Black President]]? I had created one, but [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#First_Black_president|Ed said we should talk about it here first]].

The citations I found that indicated Obama is not the first were [http://www.diversityinc.com/public/1461.cfm], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&curid=65751&diff=561761&oldid=561751], and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=534592&oldid=534582]. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:11, 18 November 2008 (EST)

*I would suggest "Bi-Racial" as the most accurate term. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Please do create an entry. Thanks for the insight. Of course, the other reason for omitting the liberal claim that Obama is the first black president (aside from its likely inaccuracy) is the dubious significance of the assertion. By now our society is long past judging people by their race, and Obama's election illustrates how exaggerated the liberal claims about continued racism really are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Gee, your right, I mean how do we know he is the first black president. I mean they didn't have photgraphs back then, so maybe John Adams was really a brother! For that matter, how do we know he is the first muslim president? Maybe Iran-contra was Reagan's way of helping his fellow Islamists!
:Seriously though, is it really a liberal claim that he is the first black president? Other than you, who is claiming he isn't? [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 18:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TTerm, perhaps you don't know how to click on a link yet. BHarlan provided several of them above for you. Also, TTerm, this isn't a blog. Contribute substantively, or rant elsewhere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Two of those links just link back to conservapedia. The third references "research" by a man named Leroy Vaughn. The claims and evidence seem dubious to say the least. Whatever the veracity of these claims, it is wrong to call this a "liberal" claim since most conservatives believe him to be the first black president as well. [[User:TTerm|TTerm]] 20:59, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Great. Would you mind undeleting [[First Black president]], if the software allows it? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Done, without yet reading it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==How to collaborate==

If you'll notice, me last few edits to this article were sweepingly changed back by [[User:Aschlafly]]. However, neither my initial round of edits, nor his response, has resulted in animosity. On my part, at least, I have nothing but unbounded respect for my co-editor here.

We are not against each other, although our approach is different. We are finding a synthesis which is (probably) better than each of us could do alone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:15, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::The Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States are collabrative efforts that him withstood the test of time, among others! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good for you, Ed (seriously - I wouldn't have been nearly as sanguine about it). The facts, however, remain that:
:#'''DanH''' - a strong editor and respected sysop - '''quit this project in disgust''' at what he saw as an attempt to "smear" Obama as a Muslim.
:#'''PJR''' - the most patient and eloquent defender of YEC I have ever encountered - '''categorically refutes''' the idea that there is any credible evidence that Obama is a Muslim.
:#'''Conservative''' - principal author of several of Conservapedia's defining articles - remains '''wholly unconvinced''' of the strength of the Obama/Muslim case, and is concerned that its inclusion in the article could '''damage Conservapedia's credibility'''.
:#'''Tim/CPAdmin1''' - one of the original members of this project - has '''repeatedly objected''' to its inclusion.
:#And finally, '''ChrisS''' - again, one of the original Conservapedians - even felt moved to describe this article as '''the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen'''. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=556523]
:What kind of synthesis do you hope to achieve in the face of such ''demonstrably principled'' opposition? These are not lone, liberal voices. These are long-standing contributors who collectively insist that '''this is plain wrong and must be removed'''.

:Good night (and good luck). --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 17:39, 18 November
::: And that's not all of it. At least two other administrators have also made known their opposition, via e-mail (which Andy got copies of at the time). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::We respect the views of a minority among us (and note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education). Regardless, obviously logic prevails over even the opinion of a majority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:46, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::: Andy, it is ''your'' view that is in the minority; JohnZ was citing the ''majority''. It seems that Ed (inadvertently) recognised that by his comment below. Hopefully logic would prevail, but unfortunately you are trying to make ''your'' minority and illogical view prevail.
::: And this yet again highlights a major problem here. You are throwing around these personal opinions as though they are factual, denigrating the opposing view and the people that put them, but not actually engaging the arguments and providing a logical response.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

The late Michael Crichton said, "The Nazis got 200 German scientists to say that Einstein was wrong, and then somebody asked Einstein, 'How does it feel to have 200 scientists against you?' And he said, 'It takes only one to prove me wrong.' " [http://www.perc.org/articles/article894.php] We don't go by majority vote around here, because the majority are (as our [[Founding Fathers]] indicated) simply not trustworthy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: So are you saying that the administrators who are in the majority on this issue are not trustworthy? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Hi Ed,

:I'm not usually known for my poor reading comprehension, but I can't tell which side of this thing your statement above is supporting. Is Andy vs. the 5 listed sysops the minority, or are the five listed sysops the minority as described by Andy ("[w]e respect the views of a minority among us)...")? Merci, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:02, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<-honh honh...''

:: Ed's comment seems clear enough to me. Logic is not the result of majority vote, and even less so the product of a consensus among the minority. Ed is opposing relying on the view of a minority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Good grief, man, must I spell it out? I'm on the side of finding out what is true! As J.M. Keynes said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" It is to the principle of truth-seeking which I express my devotion here, as well as to the collaborative process of its discovery. Stop trying to cover this story like a sportswriter trying to figure out which horse won the race. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:And what do ''you'' see as being the facts here, Ed? How do you hope to achieve your synthesis? --[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] 18:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, Ed, I'm sorry but I need it spelled out for me. This isn't a vague question for late night dorm hall meanderings. It's pretty concrete: the Obama-is-Muslim material, as Andy wants it presented, belongs in the article, or it doesn't. I can paint those two statements on horses and run them around a track if an over-extended metaphor will help here - only one of those horses can win. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:31, 18 November 2008 (EST) ''<- will, however, need to learn to play the bugle (if not the bugler)...''

:Wow, Ed, that's extremely well put!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:21, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:ASchalfly - you said, "We...note that the minority you cite has displayed almost no experience with Islam and/or Islamic education". Might I ask what your own qualifications are in this regard, since you are clearly 'over-ruling' their opinions? [[User:FredX|FredX]] 18:25, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I'm going to write an article about [[the real horse whisperer]]. I have no more time to entertain you here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:33, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Amazing. A simple question, with only two possible answers, that could be answered in fewer characters than you just used to beg off. And if you think I'm entertained you probably do think those horses are talking to you. ''Anybody'' who sticks with the "this conversation is a dragged-out waste of time" is missing the point that the time is being wasted by the continued and false defenses presented. It's only a continuing waste of time because the people in the wrong unfortunately wield all the clout, so they are in fact allowed to say "nuh unh" and ''have it stick''. If SteveRandomperson had inserted this stuff, other regular users could remove it, and when Steve got into an edit war over it any of the five sysops listed above could simply end this thing. It's only dragging on because none of them can pull rank on the proponent of this material.

:''That'' is the source of wasted time here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Aziraphale, your long-winded comment is incoherent, and your list of contributions is a remarkable violation of the [[90/10 rule]] against talk, talk, talk.[[Special:Contributions/Aziraphale]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I'm afraid he can't respond Andy. He's been blocked. --[[User:WOwen|WOwen]] 19:45, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: I had no problem understanding Aziraphale's comment, so it is quite coherent, and he makes a very good point. It would make more sense to take notice of the problem than to brush it aside and silence him with a block. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==You're All Missing the Point==

Ok I've said this once before, but nobody seems to understand so I'll try to make it clearer.

'''YOU ARE ALL MISSNIG THE POINT'''

Sitting around debating whether or not Obama is a Muslim is doing nothing to discredit him, instead it just reflects badly on conservatives. If you stopped using circumstantial evidence to "prove" that he may have told one lie on the campaign trail (which inevitably does not affect his politics) then you would realise there are plenty of valid fronts you can criticise him on:

*Abortion
*Stem cell research
*War on Terror
*Criminal rights
*Lack of substance in policy
*Economic regulation

and so on... If you examined these in detail and explained why they would be bad for America, rather than dedicating copious amounts of the article to a farfetched claim that he's a Muslim in disguise, then you would not only convince conservatives that he is the wrong candidate, but also show politically neutral parties why they should not have voted for him. Instead, the article at the moment reads like a cross between a parody and a far right-wing blog entry, and will do nothing to convince anyone other than the most conservative voter. One of your own sources in the article clearly demonstrates that these attacks actually made people vote FOR Obama, and I can definitely say that if I saw this as the ideology of McCain I would have changed sides for the election.

In debating there is a argument known as an ad homenin attack, where you attack the debator and not his/her arguments. This is weak, because it demonstrates an inability to critically analyse the opposition's position. This is exactly what is happening here, you are ''trying'' to attack Obama's character rather than his politics. If you tried more of the latter, you'll find that you will convince many more people that Obama is not an appropriate president for the United States, and win much more credibility in the process. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 20:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== obama, Muslim or "liberal Christian" with a skeptical streak - The duck test ==

Andy, you claim that you are better educated regarding Islam than the oppposing sysops and that gives you deeper understanding of the issue. In response, I will first say that you have not shown that Lolo Soetoro was a staunch Muslim and given that Obama was sent to a Catholic school at some point I don't think you can show that his father had a great influence in his life. Furthermore, it appears as if Obama's mother was not married to the stepfather Lolo Soetoro long. In addition, his skeptical mother appears to have had the most influence in his life. Given that I have spent sometime studying Islam and had a Muslim housemate when I was younger and lived in a area highly concentrated with Muslims in the past, I don't think it is fair to say that I have great ignorance about Islam. I am well aware that patriarchy is present in Islamic families, but I am also aware that Obama's fathers did not appear to have great influence in his life.

I really think at this point that Obama's behavior is key in terms of the likelihood of him being a Muslim.

Most American Muslims are not rabidly pro-abortion, have great antipathy to the homosexual agenda, and abstain from alcohol. On the other hand, most "liberal Christians" who have a philosophical skepticism streak favor the "pro-choice" position and most do not have great antipathy toward the homosexual lifestyle. In addition, most "liberal Christians" have no problem drinking alcohol. Also, there is the fact that Obama's daughters were baptised.

Given the above, if Obama walks like a duck and talks like a duck, he is probably a duck. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)'

Obama's nominally Muslim father was not religious in the first place.[[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Reversion ==

All three items of evidence that Philip deleted are fully supported and hardly deniable. I don't know why Philip wants to delete them. The entries are educational also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:I'm afraid not one of them is "supported" in any way and all are deniable. None of them are educational, and all are merely unfounded assertion and speculation. The first accusation (for that is what they are) about him not changing his name is dependent on him being Muslim to begin with. If he is not Muslim, then he has no need to change his name, and you haven't provided any evidence he's Muslim. The second accusation, about taqiyya, depends upon him being a Muslim, and you have not provided any evidence to that. The third, about the pronunciation of Pakistan, is irrelevant, as that is the correct pronunciation of that country's name. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 23:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: As FredX says, they are ''not'' supported, and they are most definitely deniable. Simply making those assertions is not a supporting argument. And how can you continue to claim that you don't know why I want to delete them when I've told you several times? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:18, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:: Philip, you have to do better than that before deleting factual and informative material. All three points are enlightening and undeniable, and I doubt you knew any of them before reading them here. We let the readers decide here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

"Letting the readers decide" would ring more true if you simply laid out the facts about Obama instead of riddling the article with unsubstantiated, repeatedly disproven falsehoods to skewer it toward your personal political viewpoint. Do you not realize that simply highlighting the positions he supports that conservatives are opposed to (his support of gay rights and abortion rights as just two examples) would do a better job turning conservatives against Obama than telling easily proven lies about him? The fact that you feel you have to resort to lies makes you look like you are guilty of the very thing you accuse liberals of: not having any actual factual argument to make. [[USER:AuthorNeubius|AuthorNeubius]], 19 November 2008

== Unbelievable ==

It's understandable that conservatives disapprove of Obama and much of this article reflects that. Smearing is nothing new to politics, but the poor logic shamelessly employed here is an embarrassment to American conservatives. As this site becomes a "de facto" conservative reference, more and more people will begin believing this is how conservatives reason and come up with their ideas. With great power comes great responsibility, and Conservapedia and Aschlafly fail disastrously as representatives of the conservative movement.

Under the pretense of "not censoring" and "letting the readers decide" the article is allowed to introduce deceptive evidence toward building weak and ultimately unproven hypotheses. Simultaneously, the exact opposite policy is used when contradictory evidence is presented.

This stunning hypocrisy can be best illustrated by how the "Obama is likely a Muslim" section is moderated. Several times myself and others have attempted to delete the statement "Obama recently referred to his "Muslim faith." Yes he said the words "My Muslim Faith" but this is utterly meaningless as no context for the statement is provided. I could say "I approve of the killing of babies coming to an end" and using the logic here I could be quoted as saying "I approve of the killing of babies"

However, we cannot escape the fact he said the words "My Muslim Faith" and since Conservapedia doesn't censor information, it must remain in the article. Furthermore, it must remain in a section attempting to show secret Muslim faith, however misleading it may be.

Where the hypocrisy comes in is that there is an overwhelming body of information that suggests Obama is not a Muslim and in fact a Christian. For example, he was sworn into the Senate using a bible in 2005, he attended a (albeit controversial) christian church for decades, no one has ever observed him performing Muslim rituals (ie, praying 5 times a day). Even the "My Muslim Faith" comment is evidence of him being a christian when viewed in full context, as it's more than clear he meant to say "My Christan Faith". Attempting to mention any of this in the article will result in an almost immediate undo and block.

The intentions of this section are transparent: to pander to modern American distrust of Muslims to build distrust of Obama. The irony of this and the article as a whole is obvious and almost comedic, as even a semi-informed reader can see through the deception and will likely end up with a reduced opinion of Conservatives.

I expect to immediately be labeled a liberal for posting this. I need to say for the record, I voted for McCain. I attend Church. I have an American flag outside my house. However I cannot stomach this article and quite frankly am ashamed that such cheap hate tactics are being used by people calling themselves conservative.

[[User:Conservamike|Conservamike]] 23:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Counter Evidence==

If we are letting the readers decide (as written above) then in order to keep this article fair and balanced we should add a section detailing the evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (such as his positions on abortion and stem cell research, his religious history, his Catholic schooling etc). If the evidence is truly overwhelming that Obama is a Muslim then there should be no problem with adding such a section, as readers will quickly be able to see that it is insufficient to counter the claim. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 08:57, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Fine, post your best stuff here first. But claiming that Obama went to Catholic school is counter evidence is, of course, absurd. Stop by your local Catholic school and you'll see Muslims students who never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Dunno if this is counter evidence, but my two cents about the misguided motivations of Obama's Lenin poster.

Most Europeans, East and West, would be severely alienated by any hidden or subliminal message that Obama was Leninist. Eastern Europe suffered under the communist iron heel for 45 years after WW2, including East Berlin. And Western Europe feared invasion. West Berlin was nearly starved by the communist blockade of the late 40s. Eastern Europe's rush to join NATO and the EU to ensure their free economies and societies is testament to this hatred of Soviet Leninist domination. Of course none of this goes to whether the poster was Leninist, only that if it was it was a serious mistake on Obama's part.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:54, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== My innocuous talk page contribution removed? ==

The Lenin poster one. Just wondered why.--[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:49, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Oh figured it out now, sorry --[[User:TruthOfChrist|TruthOfChrist]] 09:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== About the Muslim allegations ==

Allow me to play devil's advocate. I am lost. As a conservative, bordering on a paleo-conservative, with a streak of classical liberal in the John Locke/Jeffersonian sense, who also fears the coming administration greatly (I keep thinking Jimmy Carter, stagflation, FDR, Civilian Conservation Corps, prolongation of the depression, and a world war), a man's religion is his own business.

This is the United States. Our forefathers fought and died for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

In those rights are the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion.

The freedom of speech does give Conservapedia the right to impune the president elect for his supposed Muslim faith (backed by what looks to me to be evidence that is neither conclusive nor wholly circumstantial). But that doesn't mean Conservapedia should squander that right in an attempt to prove what is ultimately between him and God.

The first amendment also gives every man in this country the right to hold whatever spiritual beliefs he wants, and to share, or not share, those beliefs with others.

While I do think it is appropriate to mention speculation that President elect Barack Obama may be a Muslim, to the extent that such allegations exist and are notable, as I think they are, I do not think it is proper for this encyclopedia to attempt to make the case that he is a closet Muslim. The Muslim speculation should be relegated to later parts of the article, and reworked.

Juxtaposing a reference early on in the article, which, if you scroll to the references, indicates that Keith Ellison used a Koran in his swearing in ceremony, with the statement that Obama is an "apparent Muslim" is tawdry at best, and beneath a serious conservative encyclopedia.

Certainly, President elect Obama's political views deserve much more scrutiny from a conservative perspective, than whether or not he is a closet Muslim.

Senator Barack Obama was rated the most liberal senator, left of a self-declared socialist. I think we should focus on that.

President elect Barack Obama seems to hold political views that go against our Constitution. This raises the question about whether or not he can honestly affirm to protect and defend the Constitution.

President elect Barack Obama may institute nationalized health care, requiring children to be vaccinated in order to receive benefits, while bankrupting the private health care system for middle and lower class Americans. Where will this leave such children?

Barack Obama may very likely work to reduce or control home schooling and private schools.

Barack Obama may work to erode or eviscerate the second amendment.

There is plenty of political evidence for these other fears, and it is more appropriate to focus on these, and not his supposed secret Muslim belief system.

I recommend focusing on his easily provable liberal and possibly anti-American political views, and not waste too much time trying to prove he has some religious belief system. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 10:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:BigMike, I take it you're not an historian. People's beliefs matter greatly, and you can bet a real historian would not tolerate censorship of inquiry into someone's beliefs. Our other entries likewise provide information about the beliefs of other presidents, great scientists, and others. The insistence on censoring a similar inquiry about Obama's beliefs is misplaced and inappropriate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::I didn't mean to censor it, I just suggested a shift in focus. I meant to focus on extreme liberal political views first, as they are, to me, the most important. Change the prominence within the article, and change the tone. But you're right, I am not a historian. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:12, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::OK, your point is well-taken then. But the reality is that many of Obama's positions to date were posturing to win the presidency, and not necessarily indicative of his priorities as president. His beliefs matter more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::::No problem. I know this site takes a lot of pointless flack, and it is hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 11:20, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Perhaps a template would help ==

The discussion on this page keeps covering the same ground over and over again. Aside from the wasted time and effort, a major problem is that new users often edit the page and become instantly embroiled in the controversy, sometimes leading to bad feeling and thus driving away potentially valuable contributors.

As a solution, I suggest a template is created and added to the top of the page and any others in this situation. The wording could be something like:

:''This article deals with a controversial topic and has already been the subject of lengthy discussion. Your input is welcome, but '''please check the talk page carefully''' to make sure that the issues you raise have not been dealt with already. New users in particular are advised to start by editing less controversial pages to get a feel for the site.''

Thoughts and suggestions very welcome.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 15:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)

*We do have such. Template "Controversial". But it has problems, and needs some fixing. use the {{ and type in Controversial, and see what I mean. I have read it noted several places it is broken. If you or anyone else knows what is needed, fix the template, and if it is locked, contact Philip Rayment or Ed Poor and let them know. Thanks, good suggestion. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Thanks - I've asked Mr Rayment. If that template's ever going to be used, I think this article could do with it, though the wording could be more diplomatic in my opinion.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 16:36, 19 November 2008 (EST)

:::Perhaps it would be better slapped here, on this page? If anyone is going to change the article, hopefully they will look here first? Assuming this page is ever partially archived! :D --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:51, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== "Captured the White House" ==

Is it just me, or does this memorable line conjure up images of Barry and Joe, the special forces operatives, sneaking across the White House lawn under cover of darkness before launching a daring assault, creating a beach head in the kitchen before ensnaring their ultimate goal: the Oval Office.

Would the phrase "won the presidential election" be more encyclopedic?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 16:32, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: Your phrase would be an improvement. Go ahead, and thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::It would indeed be an improvement, but he cannot make it, as the article is locked. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 16:41, 19 November 2008 (EST)

== Religious Affiliation ==

OK, I do not want to get involved in the whole debate about whether Obama is a covert (or even overt) Muslim. (Although the statistically savvy amongst you can probably predict with 99.9999% certainty what my view is on that matter.)

However, the article currently has two sections dealing with religion. The first ("Obama will likely become the first Muslim President") comes as part of the introduction. It provides a list of evidence supporting the author's view that Obama is a Muslim. The second ("Religious Affiliation") describes various issues to do with Obama's connections in the Christian church, and provides some quotes about his history relating to the Islamic faith. Nobody reading just the second section would come away beleiving the author thinks Obama is a Muslim.

The two seem a little contradictory - either the article does take the view that he is a Muslim, in which case the second piece needs re-writing, or the article takes the view that he is not a Muslim, in which case the first piece needs re-writing, or the article presents the issue as unresolved, in which case both pieces need re-writing.

Given that the subject is so controversial, I do not want to volunteer to do the writing. It would appear that Ed Poor is Appeaser-in-Chief - maybe someone should ask him to have a go?

[[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 17:01, 19 November 2008 (EST)

: So are you now saying both sides should not be presented??? The liberal opposition to the observation that Obama is likely a Muslim is as self-contradictory as it is unjustified.

: By the way, I don't think Obama has had any Christian affiliation for many months.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:16, 19 November 2008 (EST)

Teen pregnancy

2008-11-18T20:28:35Z

JHanson:

'''Teen pregnancy''' refers to the unplanned pregnancies of unmarried school-age girls, and very often of girls who conceived or gave birth below the age of consent. It is a major social problem as teen pregnancies most often either result in [[abortion]] or in the raising of children in unstable single-parent families. The increasing rate of teen pregnancies is a consequence of increasing atheistic and secular pressures in modern society. These include the influence of [[Hollywood values]] and other manifestations of materialistic culture which erode and undermine moral standards, the hostility of school boards to the exercise of religious faith, and the bias of [[public school]] sex education against [[abstinence education]] programmes, which are the only sure safeguard against teen pregnancy.

Note: Terms like ''teen pregnancy'' refers to single teens. There is nothing wrong with married teenagers enjoying conjugal love or bring new lives into the world.

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-18T18:35:09Z

JHanson: /* Talking with enemies */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

{{hide|- I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.}}{{unsigned|Rpond}}

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for comprimise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:Practically, I think that's a workable compromise. Theoretically, of course, it's problematic: neutrality towards an incorrect idea is not objectivity. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is objectively wrong, and should be excised. But, practically, I'm willing to go with that compromise. Great idea from a helpful sysop!-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:32, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-18T18:30:22Z

JHanson: /* Talking with enemies */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]
[[/archive3|3]]
[[/archive4|4]]
[[/archive5|5]]

== Lenin Poster ==

The statement about the Lenin-like poster is informative. We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 10 November 2008 (EST)
:Andy, did you happen to take a look at the reference? The article claims that "Obama also ''revealed'' his ''deep Marxist/Leninist roots''" and that "clear parallels between the poster design and Lenin's earlier poster was ''obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint'' to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and beliefs" (emphasis mine). The citation, which was a blog, by the way, and not in any way a trustworthy source of informative information, gives no evidence to back up these statements. It shows a poster of Lenin and a poster of Obama, both of which show profiles of the figures. Assuming these pictures weren't entirely made up, do you really think that this slight similarity is Obama's way of confessing closet Marxism? Not to mention the fact that Obama likely didn't make the posters anyway -- maybe we should accuse his (very expensive!!) marketing designer of being a Marxist/Leninist. 15:45, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama and beer ==

There are several stories (with photos) of Obama drinking beer, which as an intoxicant is banned by Muslim sharia. <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2008/05/06/20/125-6web-Obama_Beer-minor.standalone.prod_affiliate.91.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/36055.html&h=325&w=485&sz=47&hl=en&start=28&um=1&usg=__ShpWdieNIwhr4Rp3jHtLe7U9MB8=&tbnid=Se90xFLBo6rNQM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=129&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bdrinks%26start%3D18%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN </ref> <ref> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156_t.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nancarrow-webdesk.com/warehouse/storage2/2008-w18/img.211156.html&h=332&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=15&um=1&usg=__Yubc0nmus36Cf4Rrf7BL7-33-0g=&tbnid=xuWGKQ1Sl8_bQM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dobama%2Bbeer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG</ref> No rational person can say that a practicing Muslim wouldn't violate the law in such a blatant, repeated manner. Another strike against the goofy Muslim charge. And remember, we don't censor here. Godspeed. [[User:Thecount|Thecount]] 12:52, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: I think many American Muslims drink beer. Nice try, though.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:57, 11 November 2008 (EST)

::And how many "dangerous" American Muslims are there that have loose enough morals to blatantly disrespect their own religious law, but are still a threat to Americans? (Of course this is all granted that he IS a secret Muslim, which I have given up trying to discuss) So I see nothing wrong if Obama turns out to be a secret Muslim. Nice try, though. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 23:54, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::He also smokes cigarettes, to complete his subterfuge. [[User:Human|Human]] 17:42, 11 November 2008 (EST)

== Hussein reference ==

It's factual and it's informative. If there is reasoned basis for deleting it, let's see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:03, 11 November 2008 (EST)

: Again, no reason has been given for deleting the Hussein reference, and there is none.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:: Andy, this is false. Reasons have been given on this talk page numerous times before. I just had a quick look, and found reasons being given in all archives except the first, as well as other places on this talk page. So you are wrong to say that no reason has been given, and wrong to say that there is no reason. And, as I have pointed out in the edit comments, five senior administrators have said that they disagree with it being there. Is your view on this somehow superior to those five put together? Do you want this to be a collaborative encyclopaedia or your blog? The former demands that you not impose your opinion regardless of who is disagreeing. Imposing your opinion regardless suggests that this is your blog. I know you don't consider it to be the latter, but that's the way it's looking. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:21, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::Not a blog but an encylopedia. If it were a blog, your opinion would carry as much weight as anyone else's. Let's put this one in [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:24, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: If it were a blog, the blog owner's opinion would carry the most weight. Almost all blogs are the opinions of an ''individual'', not a group of people. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Philip, the truth is not dependent on consensus, and 5 out of several dozen is not a consensus anyway. Give your best reason for deleting this information here. Since the beginning we have had a policy not to delete factual, informative material, particularly when it is liberal ideology that motivates the demand for censorship of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:::: I said five of the ''senior'' administrators, which numbers about eleven. So that's five out of eleven, not dozens. Further, that's five against and one (yourself) for, as the remainder have not offered an opinion that I'm aware of. (One perhaps did support you, but because they wanted to support you, not because they considered it a valid argument.)
:::: My reason is relevance, not (primarily) accuracy. I'm not disputing that his middle name is Hussein. The claim that "most Christians would not retain" their (former/Muslim/Arabic?; it's not clear) name is not supported by the references, and even if it is true, means little in individual cases. That is, even if 99% changed their name, Obama not changing his name might mean no more than him being in the other 1%.
:::: And this is just one of the points in that section. The entire argument that Obama is a Muslim is built on very circumstantial evidence, selective evidence, and logical fallacy, and is rejected by other conservatives.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Philip, it obviously is relevant, which you say is your primary objection. We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that. We provide the information and let the reader decide. If some readers want to conclude that someone with a Muslim name is actually a Christian, even though less than 1% of those raised as Muslims convert, so be it. We're not going to censor this factual information.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: "''...it obviously is relevant...''": Because ''you'' say so? If it was so "obvious", then you wouldn't have five senior administrators disagreeing with you. No, it's not obviously relevant at all, and you've not demonstrated the relevance.
::::::: "''We don't censor information here based on liberal dislike for it. Wikipedia does that.''": Given that I and the other senior administrators are not "liberals", and the rejection is based on relevance, not "dislike", why are you introducing red herrings like this? Has your argument got no more substance than irrelevancies like that?
::::::: "'' We provide the information and let the reader decide.''": Only if it's relevant. Otherwise we are just introducing padding for readers to wade through and discourage them getting to the relevant stuff.
::::::: "''We're not going to censor this factual information.''": It is not censorship to remove irrelevant information, and I'd appreciate you not implying that I'm trying to censor anything.
::::::: In summary, you have failed to produce any reasons substance as to why it should be retained.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:26, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Exactly. The point of Conservapedia is ''not'' to censor information, but to leave it to our readers to decide. The MSM has tried to push this under the rug, so the least we can do is offer these arguments to the intelligent public. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 11:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::::::: The problem is that these points are fallacious and lead to a conclusion based on specious arguments. That is neither "trustworthy" nor encyclopedic. Obama may not be your brand of xian, but he's certianly no brand of muslim. Your inability to accept that this is incorrect despite repeated arguments wherein you have shown nothing but fallacious arguments drawing poor conclusions hurts the credibility of all Conservapedia. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 11:49, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Did anyone notice how ASchlafly posited the question at or near closing time Tuesday night and declared that he recieved no answer at or near opening time on Wednesday? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:49, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Keep the reference, but 2 examples of people having changed their names for religious reasons does not mean "most" people would change their names as stated in the article. A good reference on this topic would list a percentage (presumably greater than 50%) of people who have switched religions also changing their names.
::I am sure we could come up with a very long list, but this article would not be the place for it. A sample of a couple of names to illustrate the point being made is surely adequate for all except those who wish to undermine the accuracy of the piece. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Debate On Obama's Religion==

The debate is continuing at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?‎]] It may be best to continue arguing the point there with the aim of reaching a conclusion which can then be utilised in the article, and leave this talk page for discussing other improvements. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 22:22, 11 November 2008 (EST)
:Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:09, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Reference ==

<references/>

Get the section about him being a "Muslim" there have already been to debates concluding that this should be removed. http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:Is_Obama_a_Muslim%3F http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F-[[User:Vcelloho|Vcelloho]] 00:08, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action? Untrue. ==

I am no fan of Obama. I do plan on respectfully opposing him via various channels on the internet. However, I believe I should state my opposition to this sentence of the article: "He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action."

I have not read the rest of the article because I believed months ago and for good reasons that Obama was going to win this election. For example, the unpopular war and poor economy that was partly caused by a guns and lots of butter spending strategy (Bush should have learned from LBJ committing us to a war and the Great Society programs at the same time). I also thought that it would have been easy for the Republicans to win 12 years in a row given the low quality of the Democratic party. I think the Republicans snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. I also think Americans have too much debt (last time I heard the average American had lots of credit card debt). One of the reasons for the great depression is that American's had too much debt at the time. I think Bush's call for Americans to do to do more shopping mall spending was a joke. If anything, Americans need to increase their skills to be more productive (The libraries are open but you might have to watch less TV. Last time I checked the average American watches 3 hours of television a day) and work harder to pay off their debt. American's are going to get out of the hole by increasing their productivity. It seems as if Bush did not want to learn from economic history and was only looking out for short term fixes. Well sooner or later, common sense says you have to pay the piper.

Getting back to Obama, obviously, Obama's marital success in terms of not getting divorced compared to Ronald Reagan is not the result of affirmative action. I am sure I could come up with others. I have not read the article for the most part because this sentence turned me off to the whole article. Judging from the ""He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of affirmative action." sentence, I believe a lot of time is probably being spent to defend an article rather than improve it where obvious improvements could be made. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 06:04, 12 November 2008 (EST)

: Staying married is laudable but in this context it would not be considered a "clear personal achievement." If you would like to add a footnote exception to the remark along the lines of, "he has been married for x years," I'm not opposed but I would expect that to caveat to seem off-topic, or even sarcastic, for most readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::One CP writer told me he equates divorce with adultery, and he accused Reagan of adultery on this basis. Is this the consensus view of Conservatives? Or just his own idea? Or what?

::We ought to be clear on the standards by which we judge public figures. And consistent, too. I mean, which is worse, committing actual adultery (JFK, Clinton) or getting divorced and then remarrying? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)

::: Biblically, divorce is not adultery. However, divorce is wrong unless the spouse has been unfaithful. Remarriage after a legitimate divorce is okay. The question is whether remarriage after a wrong divorce is okay. Many believe, I think that although the act of divorce may be wrong, that is a forgivable sin like any other sin, and remarriage is not a further sin. And I'd tend to agree that committing "actual" adultery is worse than divorce and remarriage. However, the point that Conservative was raising was not between those two cases, but between divorce and remarriage compared to marriage without divorce.
::: I'm not convinced that Obama's marriage does not constitute a "clear personal achievement". Given the divorce rate these days, especially among prominent people, I would think that it ''was'' a clear personal achievement. In fact I'd consider staying marriage a "clear personal achievement" for anybody these days, given all the pressures on marriage, including the peer pressure that divorce is okay.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:35, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::I rarely disagree with you, Philip, as I find your comments to be some of the more considered on this board, but here I would have to disagree. Jesus makes it quite clear that divorce *is* adultery, not *like* adultery. More then any other text, especially OT text, I take Jesus's words to heart. Mark 10
::::2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
::::3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
::::4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
::::5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
::::6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
::::7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
::::8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
::::9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
::::10 When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this.
::::11 He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.
::::12 And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery." --[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 09:41, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::::: I didn't say that divorce is "like" adultery. I said that it's ''not'' adultery. And the evidence you've offered to refute that doesn't refute that. The Bible says that someone who divorces ''and remarries'' commits adultery, not that someone who ''divorces'' commits adultery. You can't have adultery without sexual intercourse, which would be taken as given with someone remarrying, but not a given with someone just divorcing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Obama spiruality interview ==
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html a interview from a pretty religous website about Obama. Should it be mentioned? Or since it kinda contradicts abit of the article should it be ommitted? --[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:06, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:What one might say in an interview really means very little, Vmember, particularly if one is seeking to achieve a position by hiding one's essential nature or beliefs. So really what he says when seeking to impress is irrelevant. It is what he does and has done, and what he says in unguarded moments, that matters. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:16, 12 November 2008 (EST)
*um then shouldn't it atleast be mentioned somewhere in the article about this interview maybe as a response to questions about his faith section? And why is him maybe being a muslim all the way at the top of the article? Shouldn't be be somewhere towards the middle? I've never seen in all my time part of a article pushed into the intro section. Also the article contradicts itself by stating that Obama is most likely a muslim while at the same time pointing at that he was a member of a radical Christian church. That doesn't make any sense. You can't have it both ways.--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:25, 12 November 2008 (EST)
::You can if you're a sleeper for radical Islam. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 12 November 2008 (EST)
**Wait you seriously think that? Hmm fringe ideas and theories on any subject is detrimental to a discussion let alone a encyclopedia. It's dangerous thinking like that is why us conservatives lost the election and alienated so many moderates and weak liberals. Would there be any objection if I were to move the muslim part to the middle and add a section with his response to questions of his faith?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:34, 12 November 2008 (EST)
***Does this look better? http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Help:Practice_Page&oldid=555527 Hmm I kinda think instead of giving facts supporting the theory Obama is a muslim editors are trying to push it off as straight fact even though theres been evidence against it. Isn't that a tactic only liberals use and a form of deceit?--[[User:Vmember|Vmember]] 13:45, 12 November 2008 (EST)

== Poster ==

Don't delete the insight about the poster. I learned from the insight, and I'm sure others have also. We don't censor here. We let the readers decide.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:39, 12 November 2008 (EST)
:I already explained (above) why the "insight" is not actually an insight, is not supported by the source, and is likely false. Believe me, I would love it if Obama really did intentionally model his posters after those of Lenin in a subliminal message to Europeans, but there's simply no evidence of that.

:You reverted both of my edits. Do you have problems with both of them, or just the first one? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:42, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:: Sorry, I just have a problem with the deletion of the poster edit. Your other edit looked fine, but it came right after the controversial one and there was no easy way to separate the too.

:: The similarities between Obama's poster and the famous Lenin image is too obvious for words. We don't need a citation for observing, for example, that 2+2=4. If a reader wants to reject the obvious similarity between the images, then the reader is welcome to do so. Censorship is not a preferred approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:52, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::I'm not denying that they are similar, I'm denying that their similarity "[reveals] his deep Marxist/Leninist roots" and "was obviously a deliberate yet hidden hint to his European, socialistic audience as to his political roots and belief". Can I change the text to reflect that, while the two posters are similar, there's no way to know that it's a confession? (I pointed out before that if anyone is imitating Lenin here, it's probably the over-priced poster designer). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:59, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::: I'm fine with rewording, as long as it doesn't inject liberal spin or make it look like Obama didn't approve it with the similarity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::I'll try my best. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:40, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Your revised wording is great. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 12 November 2008 (EST)

:Is anyone else put off by the fact that the Germans really hated Lennin? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:25, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Fun poster [http://img.skitch.com/20080723-pbt7dkk5ksgbystrri5px6s9fr.jpg] --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST) The imagery is more common that you might expect. Nothing new under the sun as they say --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:44, 14 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted==

Mr Schlafly this page is absolutely disgusting. I am totally against Obama as you know, this is the most sorry excuse for an encyclopedia entry I have ever seen. We should leave this page as information about him as a individual, not about why we hate him and you should too. 90% of the page is opinion, and is totally innapropriate. I suggest making it into two pages. One about Obama with just simple facts about him and his backround, and you can make another about everything we hate about him. Pages like this are why we are losing our trustworthyness.
Thanks, --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

:Here here. At times I find this article amusing as an ironic hate piece, but at best it degrades this site and conservatives in general. Liberal or conservative, poor logic is poor logic. Because Obama and Lenin each had monochromatic posters featuring a pose directed toward the right it is evidence of Marxist intentions. Because Obama said the words "my muslim faith", irregardless of any context, it used as evidence of being a muslim. I don't even know what to say about the mind control thing, it's really amazing to me because as a religious person it reminds of the feelings I had when I discovered the truth of Jesus Christ: "a light will shine down from somewhere, it will light upon you, you will experience an epiphany" [[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 19:31, 13 November 2008 (EST)

==Disgusted Conservative too==

{{hide|- I did not vote for Senator Obama for political reasons, but I believe he is a good man; this article is simple character assassination; you do not go into his views and show how those are disagreeable (his views on abortion, and his want to make a hasty withdrawal from Iraq) and instead you simply accuse him of being a Muslim, and anti-American etc. also a blog is not a credible source; a blog is someone's opinion. Anyway the accusations levied upon him are for the most part completely inaccurate. He was born in The United States, he wrote his autobiography, he is not a Muslim, he is not anti-American. Please keep the disagreements political.}}{{unsigned|Rpond}}

I don't know who wrote this, but it shouldn't have been deleted. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

: The odds are less than 1% that "Rpond's" posting is genuine, in light of his misspelling of "conservative" and his other rants. It is appropriate to delete insincere or deceptive postings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:: It is an interesting experience living life each day getting verbally attacked for being a conservative then coming here and getting persecuted (justified edits to factual and encyclopedic wording) for being a liberal. You seem to be very fond of the less than 1% statistic, and have used it many times in many places, but I've never seen any solid reasoning or studies behind it (although in this case your gut instinct does seem to be credited implicitly) I think perhaps you live in a highly conservative eco chamber and aren't getting out enough to notice how little resonance this sort of thing has out in the real world. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:58, 13 November 2008 (EST)
::: Way to show your liberal stripes, BrendanW. Ad hominem attacks are not appreciated here, so please keep it civil. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::: Would that be an ad hominem attack like calling someone a liberal? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:24, 13 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Are you insulted by being described as a "liberal"? Or are you angry that you're not fooling anyone?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 13 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: Either Way its still an Ad Hominem. However I am a little "l" libertarian, and strict constitutionalist (excluding the racist portions that is) which makes me pleanty conservative, I'm also an objectivist in the Ayn Rand model, highly capitalistic and against socialism. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 09:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)

==Cool it==

I've protected this page; only admins can edit it for the moment. Many of us have strong feelings, and we have used this page to express them.

But I would hope that we all confine our comments here to specific suggestions on how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:45, 13 November 2008 (EST)

== Did you read that reference? ==

The claim is that OBama might be a Muslim and that he might swear in on a koran. The reference -ref- Obama hoped to become President when he was sworn in as U.S. Senator in 2004, and did not use a Koran at that time. Subsequently Democratic House member Keith Ellison established the precedent for being sworn in using the Koran, and there is no guarantee that Obama would not do likewise if sworn in as President. [http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_obama.html FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, ''Sliming Obama'', January 10, 2008, retrieved on 10/16/2008]-/ref- is about how Obamma is not a Muslim and did not use the Koran to be sworn in as a senator. I simply do not see how it belongs. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 08:21, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:Welcome to Conservapedia. Truth is relative to Andy. -[[User:Mike770781|Mike770781]] 15:04, 15 November 2008 (EST)

== Code name ==

The article plainly says that Obama did have a role in picking it. Hence the reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 14 November 2008 (EST)
:My article clearly says that the White House Communications Agency chose the name for him. Hence the original edit.
:I tried to find a source directly fromt he Secret Service or the White House Communications Agency, but neither of their search functions were working. I'll keep looking. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:06, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::"President-Elect Barack Obama – 'Renegade' – had a say in choosing the code name that his guards use when they are whispering into their microphones." From the article cited on our Main Page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:11, 14 November 2008 (EST)

:::''These not-so-secret names are chosen by officials at the White House Communications Agency, which was not inclined to comment on the selection process. In a previous news report, an agency spokesman said the names are assigned by "sheer whim."'' -- From my (stateside) source. You can see why I was confused.
:::I did further research (hence my half-hour long absence) According to [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/11/13/pssst_renegade_and_renaissance_are_in_the_house/ this] source, the WHCA chooses a list of names, and the President decides which one he likes best. So we were both right! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:40, 14 November 2008 (EST)

::::Everybody wins! Yay! -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 22:41, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== For the love of God!! ==
HE IS NOT A MUSLIM. I donated 500$ to support McCain and voted for him but this beyond retarded. Please remove that info, because right now nobody in their right mind can take this seriously. Also take out the Koran thing he used the bible in the senate. [[User:Nig89|Nig89]] 20:17, 15 November 2008 (EST)

: Your comment is long on your dubious assertion of a credential, but short on substance. Give us your reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Why does Obama's religion matter so much? 18:57, 15 November 2008 {{unsigned|JamesZ}}

: Good question. I hope your fellow liberals will answer it for you. They are the ones having unexplained hysteria about a simple observation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 15 November 2008 (EST)

::The word you are looking for is "accusation" not "observation". An observation would be stating that he has some traits similar to Muslims. An accusation is claiming that he is a Muslim, regardless of his own protests. On the accusation note, great job assuming anyone who doesn't believe you is a liberal Aschfly. [[User:anonymous123|anonymous123]] 00:01, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Was Barack Obama truly raised a Muslim or is he a Muslim? ==

Previously I wrote the following: Here is a well written and scholarly piece that examines Obama's religious views and it was written by the National Clergy Council: http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm The evidence does not support Obama being a muslim. The evidence also does not support Obama embracing biblical Christianity.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:19, 10 November 2008 (EST) Mr. Schlafly wrote the following: " I skimmed it and don't see where it concludes that Obama is not a Muslim. The article fails to recognize that less than 1% of people raised Muslim (as Obama was) ever leave the religion. The article says Obama is a member of a Christian church, but he left that many months ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:24, 10 November 2008 (EST)"

Here is my response to Mr. Schlafly's reply to my previous post on the Obama/Muslim issue:

I am not a fan of "Liberal Christianity" as I believe it often fails to fall into the realm of biblical/orthodox Christianity and when it does so it is not Christianity at all. With that being said, the article does give compelling evidence that Obama is a member of the camp of "liberal Christianity" and not biblical Christianity. If Obama is a "liberal Christian" he is not a Muslim. There are two logical fallacies called the [http://www.pnl-nlp.org/download/propaganda/page2.htm#sloth slothful inductive fallacy] and [http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm fallacy of exclusion] whereby "Relevant evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the "principle of total evidence"."[http://www.goodart.org/exclus.htm] '''Andy, I believe you are committing these two logical fallacies as can be seen by the material in the above cited work by the National Clergy Council. I would strongly suggest not skimming the material as it gives compelling evidence that Obama is a "liberal Christian" and therefore not a Muslim.'''

'''Next, was Obama truly raised a Muslim and therefore does the less than 1% of people raised Muslim ever leave the religion statistic apply. I don't think a compelling case can be made for the 1% argument being applied to Obama. I cite the following:
'''

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for secular humanism, a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm]

'''I will end this post by respectfully asking Mr. Schlafly a few reasonable questions''':

1. How many Muslim men are you aware of that go to a "liberal Christian church" for 20 years, get married in a "liberal Christian' church, and have their children baptized in a "liberal Christian" church, and call a Reverend of "liberal Christianity "my pastor" while living in a relatively free and democratic country like the United States? I ask this question because it appears as if all these apply to Obama.[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/04/29/2008-04-29_obama_expresses_outrage_over_former_past.html][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58954][http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml] Accordingly, '''How many similar historical examples can you give of Muslim men who did these type of things when they lived in a relatively free and democratic society like the United States?
'''

2. According to the press, Obama has visited churches and synagogues but has not visited a mosque while running for president.[http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/opinion/edcohen.php] Can you show me a single instance of Obama ever visiting a mosque while he has been an adult?

3. '''Is the case for Obama being a "liberal Christian" stronger or is the case of Obama being a Muslim stronger when the principle of total evidence being weighed is applied?''' If you state the case is stronger for Obama being a Muslim, please defend your position by truly negating the strong evidence that he is a member of "liberal Christianity" and giving compelling evidence that he is a Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:45, 16 November 2008 (EST)

:I thought the two of you might enjoy reading [http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/obamas-interview-with-cathleen.html this 2004 interview with Obama], where he discusses his faith, his baptism, and so forth. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 14:04, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::Both of you miss the point. It's not what Obama '''says''' - that has no relevance whatsoever. It's what he '''is''' and what he '''will do'''. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:11, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::: If what he ''says'' has no relevance, why is one of the supposed evidences for him being a Muslim something he ''said'' (the bit about "my Muslim faith")? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::::Bugler, I know I mentioned what Obama did and said which certainly has bearing on what Obama "is". Therefore, you did not in any way provide a counter argument. I also suggest you answer the reasonable questions I posed to Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:16, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Conservative, the roots of Al Quaeda lie in the 1940s and 50s, if not before; radical terroristic Islamic fundamentalism is not a recent phenomenon. Much of its mindset and organisational apperatus was borrowed from Leninist Communism: the notion of cell, of enrtyism, of deep penetration. Now, how difficult is it to imagine that an intelligent child, of American parentage, schooled in the Islamic environment of 1960s Indonesia and vulnerable to the influences swirling around in that environment, might be schooled and indoctrinated as the sleeper to end all sleepers, given extreme dispensations to protect his cover, allowed to eat pork, drink alcohol, marry out, attend and indeed profess to be a Christian, even to publicly renounce (on the face of it) the Islamic faith? Surely the prize would merit the game. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:24, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::So you're honestly speculating that Obama might be a member of Al Qaeda, and we're expected to believe that you're ''not'' a parodist? Riiiiiiight. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Oh, that old tune yet again. Can't you Liberals find a less boring stick to beat me with? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:17, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::::Oh, don't get me wrong, I think you're doing a great job. Keep it up. [[User:MarkB|MarkB]] 09:22, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Bugler, in light of the evidence I gave above concerning Obama's supposedly being raised a Muslim '''and the lack of evidence to support it''' plus the evidence I gave above to support Obama being a member of "liberal Christianity" , your post is at best a Hail Mary pass. Secondly, I noticed you did not answer my questions or give any solid historical parallels for your far fetched speculation. If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades I would certainly be indebted to you if you could give it. But I would add, since you never gave any compelling evidence he was raised a Muslim, this Leninist parallel speculation is a non starter anyways. Thirdly, you refer to "the prize". What prize? If you going to embrace conjecture that is contra evidence certainly you should tell your audience what the supposed prize is supposedly going to be. Should I fear I am imminently going to be put under Sharia law? Lastly, I am not stating your a parodist, but I certainly believe it is more likely that you are a parodist than it is likely that Obama is a Muslim. Your somewhat eloquent but empty defense of the indefensible proposition that Obama is likely a Muslim, certainly provides a reasonable reader to suspect you are a parodist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:41, 16 November 2008 (EST)

::::::::I've not heard the term 'hail Mary pass' before, despite being a good Catholic boy: please enlighten! ''If you could enlighten me where the Leninists were able to install a President of a Western country that had been a sleeper for two decades'' Not a president, but the private secretary of the West German Chancellor Willy Brandt was a Communist plant: how many were undetected? Certainly therer remain suspicions about the 1960s/70s UK Prime Minister Harold Wilson. ''What prize?'' Surely that is obvious. As to the objections you raise, I think it unlikely that he will use the ceremony on January 20 to declare a United states Caliphate. However, the prospect of an Islamic radical sleeper in the Oval Office raises any number of possibilities. And finally: your open suggestion that I am a parodist is welcome: a refreshing change from others here who smear me by innuendo without your honesty and openness. I assure you in all sincerity that I act with the best interests of God, Conservapedia, Freedom and Democracy always at heart. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:58, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Bugler, [http://www.wisegeek.com/in-football-what-is-a-hail-mary.htm Hail Mary pass]. Secondly, your Willy Brandt attempted historical parallel falls flat. I did a quick search on the internet and this is what CNN states about Brandt: "As a teen-ager Brandt first joined the Socialist Party of Germany (SPD) in 1930, but one year later switched to a more radical spin-off, the SAP."[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/brandt/] Brandt apparently was a socialist early on (teenager to be precise), but you have not give a compelling argument that Obama was raised as a Muslim and given the information I gave above regarding there being a lack of evidence for this proposition and evidence against it, your Leninism supposed historical parallel is still a non starter. You are certainly not applying the principle of using the total evidence. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:21, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Henry Wallace, FDR's Vice President, was a "sleeper" communist and replaced by FDR for that reason. Alger Hiss, a top aide to presidents, was a proven "sleeper" communist. A big lie is often easier to pull off than a little lie.

What's remarkable is how strenuously people deny that Obama is a Muslim. His fathers (real and stepfather) were Muslims. There's no denying that Obama was raised a Muslim, and his conduct as an adult underscores that he, like 99% of others raises as Muslims, did not leave that religion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:02, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: What's remarkable is how strenuously you claim that Obama is a Muslim without any evidence of substance, and in opposition to other conservatives, including five of your own senior administrators, who disagree with you, despite being opposed to Obama. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:An interesting question is ''why'' people try so hard to deny it to ''themselves'' when the evidence is so clearly there. [[User:RodWeathers|RodWeathers]] 20:51, 16 November 2008 (EST)
::::Andy, Wallace appears to have had been a one time Republican who later had openly leftist views. [http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Wallace cannot be counted as a long time "sleeper agent" who was a very high ranking public official through infiltration. Secondly, Alger Hiss never achieved a high ranking government official status like a president, Vice President, Secretary of State, etc.[http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/who.html] I do think that when someone goes for a very important government position, such as a President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, a higher degree of scrutiny often occurs. For this reason, I believe you are having trouble coming up with a historical instance of a very high ranked official in the Western World being a sleeper agent. Furthermore, by the time Hiss was charged who had been two years out of government and was working for the Carnegie Foundation. I believe it is invalid to use Hiss as an example of an ambitious sleeper agent who had gotten to the top of government when he had resigned from government 2 years before he was charged. Next, I do think my questions in my previous post were quite reasonable that you left unanswered. Also, and this is really at the heart of the issue, you never really countered this information which makes the idea of Obama being a sleeper agent a non-starter because it appears as if he was never truly raised a Muslim:

"Barack Hussein Obama was born in 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to a Kenyan Muslim father of the same name and an American secular humanist mother named Ann Dunham. While Obama’s father was raised in Islamic culture, he had become a functional atheist by the time he reached college. Despite his parents’ lack of religion, young Obama received his early education in both Catholic and Muslim schools.

Obama’s parents divorced when he was only two years old. Henceforth, the senior Obama was “almost entirely absent”[i] from his son’s life. Four years later, Ann Dunham relocated to Indonesia with her son to join her new husband Lolo Soetoro. A daughter, Maya, was born to the couple before their divorce. She returned to Hawaii where she went on to earn her MA in anthropology from the University of Hawaii. In his first book, Dreams from My Father, Barack Obama wrote of his mother, “She was a lonely witness for '''secular humanism''', a soldier for New Deal, Peace Corps, position paper liberalism.”[ii]

Obama’s mother was a huge influence in his life. In an interview with Oprah Winfrey in October 2006, he said, “My mother—when I think about the values I hold most dear, they came from her.”[iii] In a speech given at a Moms Rising event in 2006, he said, “Everything that I think is good about me, I got from her.”[http://nationalclergycouncil.org/010807BarackObama.htm] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In response to your indented general comment above, there's nothing magical or divine about presidential politics that ensures honesty. Woodrow Wilson was paralyzed by a stroke for more than a year while president, and the public did not know. Your argument that it is impossible to keep such things from the public is simply wrong. Wallace was not widely known to be a communist or else Roosevelt would never have been elected with Wallace on the ticket. Roosevelt finally figured it out (or was tipped off), and without explanation replaced Wallace. The leftists were dumbfounded by this move, as they were on the verge of making Wallace president when Roosevelt died. Oh, and the sickness of Roosevelt was also kept from the public. He died from his illness within a mere weeks of becoming president for the fourth time. The public didn't expect that either.

: In response to your specific questions, you're quoting self-serving and implausible statements. Obama was raised by a Muslim stepfather. He learned to view the Muslim call to prayer as the most beautiful thing in the word. There is no real indication any change by Obama, and his keeping of the name "Hussein" illustrates that he did not have a rare adult conversion from Muslim to Christianity. All indications are that such conversion was politically motivated to persuade the public, and one might say that was obviously successful with some! But I doubt Obama will continue his charade indefinitely. Watch for aid to impose Islam on more foreign countries, and watch for inclusion of the Koran at official ceremonies, if not on Jan. 20th itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:18, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is "quoting self-serving and implausible statements". Even five of your own senior administrators disagree with you, but, like Wikipedia, you persist with imposing your own view on this article. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
Andy, I don't think you can give me a single piece of evidence of Obama's mother being a Muslim and given there is evidence against this matter that is not surprising. It also appears as if Obama has a great influence in his life which is not surprising since she was his biological mother. In addition, Obama appeared to have received some Catholic education when he was young. Therefore, your supposed case that Obama was raised a Muslim is certainly not built on a bedrock of solid evidence. Accordingly, the Obama article should not state that Obama is likely a Muslim. Next, I never stated that it is impossible for someone to get to a top political office as a sleeper agent but merely improbable and historical determinations should be reached probabilistically. Also, while it may have not been known that Wallace was a communist (if indeed he was a communist which is a matter I have not investigated but which could certainly be true), there does appear to be indications that he had openly strong leftist views for even the Democrats.[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USARwallace.htm] Therefore, you historical precedent argument in this case is certainly not a stronger one in terms of Wallace being a "sleeper agent". It does not sound plausible to me that a Communist sleeper agent would have openly strong leftist views that even the Democrats found distasteful. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: In Muslim families, like the one Obama was raised in, the father dictates the religious upbringing of the boys. Please learn more about the Muslim traditions. With so little awareness of it by Christians, it's no wonder Islam is trouncing Christianity around the world.

: Alger Hiss was later proved to be a communist and read up on how he was the TOP adviser to FDR at the key WWII conference carving up Europe. Not only was he a sleeper communist agent, but the liberals denied it for decades even after Hiss was convicted in court. Only in the last few years did one of his co-agents admit the truth. Please learn about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:43, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::: Islam is "trouncing" Christianity? In what way? Greater population growth, perhaps, but that's not relevant here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 17 November 2008 (EST)
:::Andy, have you made the case that Obama's stepfather was a staunch Muslim? I know you have not because it appears as if Obama attended a Catholic school when he was young. Therefore, you still not have made the case that Obama was raised a Muslim. Next, Hiss may have been a top advisor at one point in his life, however, an advisor is not a very top government official (President, Vice-President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, etc.) who certainly often faces much more scrutiny. Andy, given historical precedence and the greater scrutiny that is often given to people ascending to the very peaks of government power, I do think the case for a sleeper agent rising to the pinnacle of power in a government institution is very tenuous to say the least. I think this principle of sleeper agents not ascending to the pinnacles of large organizations is true of institutions outside of government as well. For example, people when being sarcastic in replying to a yes or no question, will sometimes say, "Is the Pope Jewish?" meaning that the pope is not likely an adherent of Judaism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:34, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, it appears as if there is strong evidence that Obama attended a Catholic school but there may not be evidence that he attended a school that truly could be called a Muslim school. Please read [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp this article.]

Regardless of whether or not CNN or the AP did their work with diligence, there appears to be no controversy regarding that Obama did in fact attend a Catholic school. Therefore, I still maintain that the claim he was raised a Muslim does not have strong support. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:22, 16 November 2008 (EST)

: Catholic schools welcome Muslim students. They still do. The Muslim students virtually never convert.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:07, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Catholic schools may very welcome Muslim students but what staunchly Muslim father sends his son to a Catholic school? Andy, you still have not jumped over the evidential bar that Osama was raised a Muslim. The so called Muslim school was apparently not strongly Islamic or possibly not even Islamic at all ( [http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp read this article.] ) and the stepfather appears to not have had a strong Muslim faith as evidenced by the fact that he sent Obama to a Catholic school. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:56, 16 November 2008 (EST)

In the Unification Church, it is not unusual for parents to send their children to a Catholic grade school. So what if they come home, crossing themselves when they pray? Overall, the education is better there than in public schools, so if they can afford it the practice makes senses. I daresay mainstream Christians likewise don't mind the sectarian differences. Any way out of secular humanism is often fine with them.

It appears likely that as president, Obama will be more sympathetic to Islamic countries in his foreign policy. Maybe he'll even be able to get them to lighten up on their "destruction of Israel" goals, or allow [[religious freedom]] for Christians and Jews. Are [[Turkey]] and [[Indonesia]] good examples of this?

I see good in all religions, and I don't see Islam as irredeemably evil. So what if Obama is or was Muslim? There is [[no religious test for office]], and he can't be impeached for it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:09, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Another case for Obama being Muslim==
During a campaign rally, two Muslim women in Muslim garb, were removed from prominent camera view. The reason is A) Obama doesn't want his image assoc. with Muslims B) or doesn't like Muslims (we know the opposite is true). Now, he doesn't want images of Muslim assoc with him because he is A) secret Muslim or B) the American people will think he is a Muslim. (Which 27% already do). Did Obama try to hide his Muslim background and is that plan still in progress?--'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 17:52, 16 November 2008 (EST)
:::Are A and B the only choices on why Obama does not want himself associated with Islam? Is a false dilemma being proposed? For example, setting aside whether it was right or wrong which is a whole other discussion, did 9/11 drive up the American public's negative beliefs and/or attitudes regarding Islam? Would the American public look less favorably upon a candidate who received some Muslim religious education (Obama also received Catholic training in his youth. And there is certainly reason to believe that a certain degree of philosophical skepticism was imparted to Obama via his mother). In short, I think the above post fails to use the principle of using the total evidence (see my posts above) plus contains a false dilemma. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:09, 16 November 2008 (EST)

== “Less than 1% Muslims convert” – Prosecutor error? ==

OK, time for something new and I direct this particularly to Aschlafly. There is a logical fallacy called the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is very subtle but real enough to send innocent people to the execution chamber. In fact, many lawyers and judges don’t understand it. It works like this. Please concentrate: this isn't all that easy.

Let us suppose that it is true that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, even if this was at an immature age when he really had no say in his faith. And let us grant that only 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity. The argument which Aschflafly uses time and again is to deduce that that this means that, notionally at least, that there is a 99% chance that Obama is a Muslim.

The fallacy of the argument is that it does not recognize that the IF Obama was in that 99% of Muslims who did not convert, there would be no practicable way he could have run for President. Therefore the chances that he is one of those who DID convert are raised far beyond the mathematically obvious one of 1%.

Let me give you a real-life example. A woman had three children and each expired early in infancy of “cot death”. The prosecutor did his math and advised the court that there was a “one in 70 million” chance of this happening by accident. Therefore, the jury was heavily disposed to assume that she was guilty of the serial murder of her children. But the fallacy of the case is that she was ONLY arrested because of the rareness of the 3 children dying of cot death in the one family. But even if this only happens one in 70 million families, in a large country such as the U.K or U.S.A, and over a period of decades, it is BOUND to occur, purely by accident. If we then tell a courtroom that there is only a 1 in 70 million chance that she is innocent, we are guilty of the “Prosecutor’s Error”. It is tantamount to arresting a man who comes into a lot of money suddenly and is arrested under suspicion of larceny. He explains that he won it on a lottery, but the Prosecutor says he has looked into the “Lottery” business, and there is only a 1 in 20 million chance of winning it, therefore there is only a 1 in 20 million chance the indicted man is telling the truth.

In Obama’s case, once again, EVEN if it is true that only 1% of Muslims convert, AND ALSO true that he was born into the Muslim faith, the fact that his circumstances allowed him to run for the Presidency argues that he was one of those Muslims who DID convert, and thus makes his chances of being a non-Muslim substantially greater that 1%. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:05, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:I understand your math, but your reasoning does not convince me. The lottery example was the most unfortunate attempt.

:Although in any given lottery, the chances may be 1 in 20 million for one person to win - the fact is that '''every''' lottery has a winner.

:The problem with Obama's religion is not so much ''Which is it?'' but, "How shall the electorate now regard its new president elect?" Will Obama be pro-Muslim (because he's Muslim or was raised Muslim)?

:A related question is, "Will Obama be pro-Black because he is black?"

:I get along equally well with black Christians as with white Christians, so this is not an issue for me. I've also found Muslims personally just as honest, reliable and hard-working as Christians. What's all the fuss about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Awesome article ==
Just wanted to say, finally a good resource about obama. Fantastic research about the muslim piece, it really shows him as the closet muslim like he is. Shame the libs just don't get it !! [[happymoon|happymoon]]

== Great comedy article ==

It's a shame people don't get the jokes. Just wanted to pop in and say keep up the good work! Was referred here by a friend who also got a kick out of this article. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 11:08, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:Read the article properly before you start calling it a joke. You've been looking at Obama from a left wing viewpoint; try looking at him from a right wing viewpoint. It'll do you good.--[[User:WHurst|WHurst]]

==This will be a hit on stormfront==

America reaches a milestone in his history and all you guys can do is peddle false lies which have been repudiated by just about everyone in the political business. The comment about 'possibly been sworn in by the koran' is not only false, but a terrifying example of what racism and ignorance is capable of. You may not be white nationalists, but your inability to reasonably discuss this man's faith without resorting to the most despicable acts of scaremongering is typical of the tripe we see on racist websites.

Keep this crap up and you'll make sure to keep the black vote away from your party for the forseeable future. [[User:JCharlton|JCharlton]] 17:50, 17 November 2008 (EST)

::Race and religion are two different things. Why do liberals always resort to racism? Maybe its becaus you don't have any real arguments against the issues raised here? This isn't wikipedia, we deal in facts here. [[User:Patriot1505|Patriot1505]] 20:20, 17 November 2008 (EST)

== Reply ==

Don't know where to start. Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim. What's it to someone who (1) is an atheist, (2) is an Australian, (3) is a Christian, or (4) would support him regardless? Frankly, the opposition by some is puzzling.

Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here. Perhaps we can all agree that it's worth learning more about what many say has quickly become the world's largest religion, and the strongest religion in Europe today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:49, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:It really shouldn't be that puzzling Andy. They are calling out what they believe to be falsehood. When people made spurious, questionable claims about Bush, how did Conservapedia respond? Did you include the information or remove it? Its the exact same thing. You tried to keep the spurious information out of it. The name "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" implies intellectual honesty, and on this particular aspect most people here (myself included) find this pile of circumstantial evidence to be based on poor conclusions, false arguments, and illogical reasoning to be an absurdity without any solid claims that say he is a Muslim. The burden of proof is on you to -prove- that he is, not provide a loaded mountain of evidence that is obviously taylored to imply that he is with no proof whatsoever other than bad logic. I can't believe this topic is still going. [[User:EternalCritic|EternalCritic]] 22:17, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:: There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood. Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim. Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%.

:: Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%. Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:52, 17 November 2008 (EST)

:::When you promote someone over yourself here, the beef can be over censorship. Until then, it's just people saying they think you're wrong. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:16, 17 November 2008 (EST) ''<-like me, for example...''

Don't fall for the devil's tricks. These "conservatives" are not true Christians. [[User:Somebody21|Somebody21]] 23:33, 17 November 2008 (EST)

"''Maybe someone else can explain why they get so enraged at the likelihood that Obama is a Muslim.''": Yes, I would like you to explain that. Because ''you'' are the one enraged at that. I, on the other hand, am "enraged" that he is being accused of being a Muslim on the basis of logical fallacy, lousy arguments, and false claims.

"''What's it to someone who ... is a Christian''": As a Christian, my concern is for the ''truth''. Why do you continually try and misrepresent this as censorship, liberal lies, or whatever?

"''... some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here...''": That is not the issue I'm arguing. You are again raising red herrings. The issue is the claim that he is a Muslim, which claim is not supported by the evidence.

"''There is nothing "spurious" about it, and you lose credibility with your baseless claims of falsehood.''": No, Andy, it '''is''' spurious, and ''you'' lose credibility with ''your'' baseless claims that he is a Muslim.

"''Even Obama's biggest supporters would have to admit that there is a significant probability that he is a Muslim.''": On what grounds? Certainly not those in this article.

"''Given that, it's bizarre how some adamantly insist that the probability must be less than 50% rather than greater than 50%.''": "That" is not given. Rather, it's bizarre how ''you'' adamantly insist that he ''is'' a Muslim given the lack of evidence.

"''Frankly, the demands to censor this information smacks of liberal bias.''": I'm going to shout because you obviously didn't hear me before: "IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO REMOVE IRRELEVANT INFORMATION, AND I'D APPRECIATE YOU NOT IMPLYING THAT I'M TRYING TO CENSOR ANYTHING."

I've pointed out a number of problems, and your response has been to slander the criticism as censorship and liberal, to introduce red herrings, and to assert your opinion as fact. What you have ''not'' done is actually address the issue.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:57, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:How dare you accuse Andy of slander. And what hypocricy. The only slanderer, Philip, is you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 03:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:: Yet you make no attempt to refute that it was slanderous, nor to substantiate your accusation against me. In other words, a substanceless response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy, regarding "''(Islam being) the strongest religion in Europe today''": you never cease to amaze us with your wealth of knowledge of the world outside the USA, be it UK, the whole of Europe or Australia. Kudos to you! --[[User:Europeo|Europeo]] 07:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::''Regardless, some remarkable displays of lack of knowledge about Islam and Islamic education have been displayed here.'' I think that's a statement with which anyone would agree. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)

==Four Questions For The Trojan Candidate==
{{QuoteBox|1=It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at TexasDarlin and many other blogs to conduct the solid, investigative research that the media, the democratic national committee, agencies of the federal government, Barack Obama himself, and Congress should have done on the eligibility and qualifications of Barack Obama. The first serious look at Barack Obama ’s Constitutional eligibility began on this blog, with the exposure of the birth certificate mystery, Obama-Soetoro’s Indonesian citizenship, and analysis of the constitutional problems with Obama’s multiple citizenship status irrespective of birthplace.
 
Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to change the outcome of the Democratic nomination and the election—especially in light of the MSM bias, the Obama campaign’s tactics, and DNC shenanigans– for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his lack of experience, stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda ([http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/] ) and the startling depth of his secrecy.
 
Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth, explosiveness, or unpredictability of this phenomenon we have witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama ! We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge of possible dissolution of our country, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water, or running away to avoid the explosion….either scenario leads to serious burns!
 
While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosive change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America. We can use the 2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.
 
The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.
 
'''Four Questions'''
 
I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country. By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.
 
These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and the existing lower court dismissal) before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond by December 1, 2008. It is also disturbing that these questions are before the U.S. Supreme Court when the candidate himself or the DNC could easily have dispelled any speculation by providing simple documentation.
 
While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter required Obama to respond to Berg’s writ of certiorari. Even if, as some have said, Souter ’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution, and will determine if the full Supreme Court decides to hear the case. In responding, Obama will be essentially arguing why the writ of certiorari should not be granted.
 
In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg in the lower Court should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”. But some Judges do actually realize the question may be beyond their jurisdiction and ‘ask for help’ by clearly making appealable and reversible errors that a higher court can rule on. The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.
 
The questions presented for review are:
 
*1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
*2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candidate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
*4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibility of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?
 
The “questions presented for review” in the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate, but instead to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.
 
Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on his past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed respond that the writ should not be granted because (1) a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified. Notice he is in a position of arguing technicalities here, and completely misses his own obligation to prove himself.
 
Although doubtful, it is also possible Obama would try to argue that the 14th Amendment says that “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” are “American citizens”, thereby satisfying the requirements of Article II. I really can’t imagine he would bring this up, unless asked in a hearing, as the question of the 14th Amendment’s modification of Article II is a constitutional matter that only the Supreme Court can decide. Recall that on Obama’s own website he claims that he is a U.S. Citizen under the 14th amendment.
 
I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not to release his COLB, citizenship records, passport files, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.” He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution, including, as above, that the 14th Amendment applies to Article II. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond?
 
If Obama responds in any other way, he could be forced to disclose and/or identify when, how, and what steps citizens can take, or what steps are taken, to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. Using the process he acknowledges—for example, the “DNC vetting process”–he may then be forced to prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II by showing the documentation he provided to the DNC, if he provided anything to the DNC. Alternatively he could concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS, and that “America has to take his word for it”. Would the Supreme Court then order him to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?
 
One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure the POTUS’ eligibility. “Checks and balances” can mean procedures, legislative processes, acts, bills, agencies, or resolutions. Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution promoted by Senators Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies. In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill). The Senate resolution was developed in April, 2008 to “validate” John McCain ’s natural born citizen status when it was unnecessary, and in some ways the resolution’s language can be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS. Looking at the text of the resolution and supporting statements, Senator Leahy has the following curious exchange with Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff (emphasis mine):
 
Chairman Leahy. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President….You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
 
Secretary Chertoff. My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
 
As Berg’s case has evolved, he refined the scope of defendants who now must also respond to the writ, including the DNC, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and its Chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein , the Federal Election Commission (FEC), and several Pennsylvania government officials.
 
With the exception of the DNC, who also joined in Obama’s initial motion to dismiss the lower case on lack of standing, I think the other defendants’ responses might be decidedly different. The FEC could claim that it actually has no jurisdiction in the matter by way of its charter and organizing documents, and that even if it did, it is far too understaffed to perform investigatory functions, as cited by Senator Feinstein in testimony before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on May 28, 2008 (link to http://rules.senate..gov/hearings/2008/052108feinsteinopen.pdf). And will Senator Feinstein blame the Bush administration, or will she admit that she too just assumed the DNC vetted Obama and that he was eligible?
 
After reviewing Obama’s legal argument against granting the writ of certiorari and the other defendants’ responses, Justice Souter will then review Berg’s response before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will hear the case. Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter required Obama to respond to the writ of certiorari. In my opinion, Justice Souter would not have granted this appeal from Berg if he thought the issues were irrelevant and not worthy of the Court’s attention.
 
How does the Supreme Court react? Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the lower Courts to resolve the matter expeditiously, requiring the release of documents? Will it order the FEC, Electoral College, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures? Will they agree with Obama, if he mentions it, that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?
 
Although the Supreme Court will not want to be seen as determining the outcome of another election—even for the perception of “fairness”– the questions presented in the writ are completely different than presented in Bush v. Gore. Under Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court clearly has the jurisdiction to decide the matter. Legal scholars will point to Marbury v. Madison ( link to http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=19) as precedent if the full Supreme Court accepts the writ, orders the lower Court in error, directs it to secure Obama’s documentation, and chastises the DNC, FEC, the PA state agencies, the Senate, and Senator Obama for not doing their job, and not forcing the production of documents itself, while still retaining jurisdiction.
 
If this is the outcome, a motion could be made by Berg to stay the vote of the Electoral College pending the outcome of the case. If the Justices are concerned about the matter and integrity of the 2008 election, that motion could be granted. The expedited discovery of documents would proceed. Yes, I understand this is a long-shot and speculation on my part.
 
And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama ? Is it up to your employer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation? Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America? I believe that the burden of proof on eligibility rests solely and unconditionally on Barack Obama’s shoulders. I am not alone in this belief (link http://americamustknow.com/Documents/OBAMA%20LAWSUIT,%20Class%20Action.doc).
 
Alinsky Returns?
 
As I sit in disbelief and alarm even writing this article—that something as basic as citizenship status of the potential POTUS is in front of the Supreme Court at this late date—I am reminded of a framework set forth in an earlier article, The Trojan Candidate (link to http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-trojan-candidate/), and the use of Alinsky-style community organizing techniques to advance an agenda of revolutionary change. In this article I posited that Barack Obama has a hidden agenda and part of implementing his agenda involves the use of techniques developed by Saul Alinsky and discussed in such books as Rules for Radicals (http://www.semcosh.org/AlinskyTactics.htm).
 
'''From the Trojan Candidate:'''
 
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers [community organizers] and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, ‘must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.’ The organizer’s function, he added, was ‘to agitate to the point of conflict ’and ‘to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a “dangerous enemy.” ‘The word ‘enemy,’ said Alinsky, ‘is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people’; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
 
What could be the reason for withholding his citizenship papers and birth status, especially if he has nothing to hide? Does he plan to use this in some way to “rub raw the resentments of the people” [and] “fan the latent hostilities to the point of over expression”? The concerns about Obama’s Constitutional eligibility will be met with accusations of “racism”; that the “system” wouldn’t do this to a white man, and that the republicans or others are trying to ‘take Obama out’ on a “technicality”. And worse.
 
If Obama is ineligible, he could rightly be called a ‘dangerous enemy’ and forced to stand down. It is at this point that “the word ‘enemy’ is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people…” and the maneuvering and baiting of the establishment forces it to back down, with Obama prevailing whether having shown his documentation or not. As you contemplate this, think of all the money, the inevitability narrative, the shutting down of dissent, the timing of events, the threat of violence and insurrection, the establishment of the office of the president elect, and the simply overwhelming of America with all things Obama. This certainly pulls the light from shining on the real Barack Obama ’s Trojan candidacy.
 
If Obama is proven ineligible, does not stand down or even if he does stand down, it is not unreasonable to expect some “in-your-face” hostile reactions and calls for immediate changes that permit Obama to stay. How ironic: in defense of liberty and the Constitution, we will be called ‘racists’.
 
'''Implications for the Future'''
 
The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s qualifications and intentions in the next four years.. Currently there are 17 different legal actions in various state and federal courts, which now challenge the validity of the electoral process across the country, regardless of outcome (see http://www.soundinvestments.us/files/final_writ_keyes_v_bowen.pdf) .
 
Just my suspicion, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework. I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures” as discussed in this 2001 radio interview. (link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8)
 
As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, that the DNC did not do its job, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions. The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility. I personally doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the Constitution.
 
Up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications. We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution. Looks like our age of innocence is over.
 
It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.. If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, which ¾ of the states have to ratify. None of this can happen before the January 20th inauguration.
 
The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong. Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy nor do they provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates. Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud, and the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”. I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”. We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.
 
What is next for our country? Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, and we’re not going to run away, then we’d better start creating an alternative vision. A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:
 
“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…” [http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/four-questions-for-the-trojan-candidate/]}}
{{unsigned|TK}}

==Andy, if it can perhaps be quibbled that there is merely a 20% chance of Obama being a Muslim, then why is the Obama article stating that he is likely a Muslim? ==

Dear Andy,

You wrote above regarding the probability of Obama being a Muslim the following:

"Perhaps one can quibble whether that probability is 20% or 60% or 90%, but no one can insist with a straight face that it is 0%."

Andy, if it can be perhaps be quibbled that the likelihood of Obama being a Muslim is merely 20%, then why is the article still stating that Obama is likely a Muslim? Second, Andy do you think that a reference work should use scholarly caution and that scholarly caution helps make a reference work authoritative? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:01, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:In this case, what you describe as 'scholarly caution' means knuckling under to Liberal suppression of facts and discussion. The scholarly option is to seek out the truth, no matter how disturbing that truth or the process of uncovering it might be to those on the left. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:43, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Andy I also fear we are not doing our site any favors in this area. If Obama is a Muslim, he is certainly keeping that under wraps. There is no indication that he would suddenly take the oath of office on a Koran. Such a turnabout that he lied about his Christianity would destroy his ability to govern. It is more likely, if he is a Muslim, that he would support Muslim causes without making a profession of his own faith. We should also realize, based upon his policies, that if he does have Islamic ties that they would be akin to the type of ties that John Kerry has to Catholicism, very poor. His views on abortion alone would be considered extreme Western decadence within the greater Islamic world view. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Bugler, I purposely chose Andy's words that "perhaps one can quibble that the probability is 20%". Therefore, if Andy is correct about the 20% issue then the statement that Obama is likely a Muslim should be removed from the article. I am just following Andy's statement where the logic leads if his statement is true and no knuckling under is necessary. I do think it is fair to say that people come to an encyclopedia to read facts and not speculation. Speculation weighs down an encyclopedia by eroding its credibility. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::Saying "One could argue that X is 20%" doesn't in any way mean accepting that that X '''is''' 20%. It merely allows the existence of theoretically possible grounds of debate. If I said there were grounds for arguing that the planet Jupiter was made of cheese, likewise it doesn't mean that I think it is reasonably possible that such is the case. Andy is (in my interpretation of his words) admitting grounds for debate; it does not mean that he (or anyone else who takes a rational view of the issue) accepts only a 20% likelihood. The whole point of the point at issue is that it disproves the blinkered dogmatism and naivety of Liberals who say "Oh, Obama has said he's a Christian so he '''can't possibly''' be a Moslem." Liberals cling to dogma like an unweaned child to its blanket; we conservatives prefer debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, not from wish-fulfillment fantasies. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:14, 18 November 2008 (EST)
::::::: Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.
::::::: And no, the whole point is ''not'' to support liberal views. That's a false claim. And if you as a conservative prefers debate, rational discourse, and seeking truth from facts, why are you reversing my edits without offering any rebuttal to my points?
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:38, 18 November 2008 (EST)
''Admitting that 20% is ''possible'' means that you've destroyed your argument that it ''is'' more than 50%.'' You haven't read it, have you? Read it again, nice and slowly, take your time, and especially consider the Jupiter analogy. As for the vulgar abuse in your edit summary, I will let that speak for itself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

It might be good to create a subarticle, with [[Barack Obama]] as the main article. We have templates for this; Philip is our template custodian and can place whatever we need.

I protected the article, because edit wars don't serve our readers; and they don't help us contributors much either.

I didn't look at Andy's last version. I just guessed it might make a good starting point.

Let's discuss, rather than trying to "get our way". Wiki collaboration should result in stability. Let none of us rock the boat. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed. I agree that edit wars are undesirable. I don't consider that I was edit warring. I was trying to protect this article, which has been arrived at in its current form after much debate, from unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism. In the course of doing so I have yet again been accused of mendacity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 09:51, 18 November 2008 (EST)

: Thanks, Ed, for bringing stability. As Bugler points out, there is nothing in my observation that "perhaps one" can quibble whether the likelihood Obama is a Muslim is 20%, 60% or 90% that justifies censoring the evidence and statement that he is likely a Muslim. Juries make such determinations based on the evidence all the time; so do encyclopedias. The evidence is compelling and will not be censored or downplayed here, despite some (for unknown reasons) disliking it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::Yes, of course there is evidence. And being a Muslim is not a punishable in the US, so the jury need not use the standard of "[[beyond any reasonable doubt]]". It's more like a lawsuit, I guess, where you need only be 51% sure to vote one way or the other.

::Personally, I'd like CP to make some indication that some conservatives are still in doubt about [[my Muslim faith|"his Muslim faith"]], but that desire does not outweigh the need for editorial harmony.

::It is liberals - rather than conservatives - who insist on censoring all views contrary to theirs, in the US. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:03, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::: Ed, when the issue is the president of the United States, then even less than a 51% chance is often sufficient to be influential, just as less than 51% chance is enough to deny someone an important job.

::: Someone is missing the the point about [[my Muslim faith]], which omits the telling phrase: "Muslim faith." No Christian would use that specific phrase so casually in reference to himself. How about someone saying "Allah the Creator"?! Christians don't use the phrase.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:10, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Falsifiability & "My Muslim Faith" ==

Aschlafly, Ed Poor, etc. -

Is there any piece of evidence that, assuming it existed, would convince you that Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim? You've now admitted there's a chance he's not a Muslim, so what piece of evidence would convince you that he's not? As it stands, your argument seems unfalsifiable, and ridiculously conspiratorial: everytime someone offers evidence that Obama's not a Muslim, you just reply with, "oooh, he's a tricky one! He must have worked to cover that up!" That's not a respectable, logical argument: it's an inability to recognize fact when it's put before your eyes. What piece of evidence could convince you of that, if any?

Further, if I go through the George W. Bush talk page I bet I'll find a million examples of you apologizing for Bush's rhetorical missteps, and arguing that when he says something incorrectly, it doesn't mean he's stupid. Why, then, are you not willing to take Obama's slip of the tongue as the same thing - unconscious error, not indicative of any deeper meaning?

The fact is, you have no principled basis for the distinction. Nor are you going to accept any evidence that Obama's a Christian. You're just clinging to a pet theory when even your own administrative staff tells you you're wrong.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 10:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Towards stability via discussion ==

:''unilateral and ideologically-driven deletions bordering on vandalism''

Vandalism is replacing the page with "Stinky loves Myrtle". Unilateral editing is doing your own thing, even when you know someone else will just want to revert (see [[Editing etiquette]]).

Let's come closer together, rather than battle it out on the page itself. Talk pages are for talking. Let's hear some more talk! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:29, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:The problem with that, is that if people talk about it, and say almost anything to disagree with the current state of the article, they are likely to get blocked for the "90/10 Rule against talk talk talk" or "liberal namecalling" or some other excuse. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:: Tim, that's simply not true. The [[90/10 rule]] guards against nothing but talk. It's easy to make substantive contributions to comply with the rule, and it's easy to refrain from namecalling in discussions. In fact, both are essential to keep the level of discourse and learning here at a high level.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::The [[90/10 rule]] might guard against nothing but talk, but it sure seems to guard against some kinds of talk a lot more than others. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 10:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::If so, there's nothing wrong with that. Jaywalking is not prosecuted as much as petty shoplifting either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Aschlafly, you can tell yourself that all you want, but this much is clear; the 90/10 rule is a content-neutral rule applied in a manner that amounts to viewpoint discrimination. You only apply it against liberals. You've long since abandoned the stance that you "don't block ideologically."
:::::This site has survived for two years ''only'' by ruthlessly persecuting anyone who disagrees with your worldview. Tim is right, but I'll take it one step farther: I think the reason you censor people who disagree with you is because you know you'll lose in a fair fight. The Barack Obama article is just one more example of that. Except now, even your own sysops disagree with you, so you devolve into insulting Philip and dodging the question.
:::::Of course you can block me, and prove Tim right.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 11:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::@Aschlafly: I don't get your analogy. Jaywalking and petty shoplifting are different crimes. Excessive talk by a liberal and excessive talk by a conservative is the same "crime". So the "prosecution" ought to be applied equally against both, right? Otherwise it isn't a ''rule'', it's just an ''excuse'' to make people you don't agree with go away. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:04, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::: Rob, within the same crimes prosecutorial patterns are different. It's called "prosecutorial discretion." It is used every day by law enforcement and it is obvious why it is needed. I'm not going to waste my morning spelling this out for you. Take a basic course on criminal justice, or simply follow the news.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 18 November 2008 (EST)

I would say you are partially correct, RobNewberry. Sometimes people need to be "invited" to leave, much like a dinner guest who overstays their welcome. If a person comes to Conservapedia knowing full well it is a conservative/Christian friendly wiki-encyclopedia, and is a liberal, the question is why? If the answer is they support Andy Schlafly's idea of an conservative alternative to the decidedly left-of-center editor dominated Wikipedia, that's great! All voices should be represented on the Net. But if their intentions are merely to argue and dispute conservative or Christian points of view, that becomes a subtle form of vandalism, inasmuch as it is a great time waster for those who genuinely want to contribute their conservative/Christian POV, and build this encyclopedia. My own opinion is that those who obsessively create new user names, only to argue against conservative values, and disrupt/time waste, are actually terrorists of the Internet kind. What other reason would they have to stick around? Any board or wiki does and should have the absolute right of association.

This would hold true for a conservative joining a known liberal board or wiki, and spend all their time disputing the members, arguing without end, and seeking to put their conservative point of view into their discussions or articles. I am not for truncating free speech automatically, but after weeks and weeks of disputing everything, knowing you are not going to change CP into Wikipedia's more liberal world-view, or have CP adopt all of Wikipedia's member conventions, a person's efforts then cross over into something more, what I have taken to calling Internet Terrorism. CP has an owner, it is his right to have whatever viewpoint he wants. If people agree, with even a part, they stick around and help build this place. If they don't, what other reason, other than being obstinate or having malicious intent, could they have? Disagreement is fine, debate is good. But where does it end, and the ability of like-minded individuals to associate with those they agree with, without constant disagreement begin? --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 11:41, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Please don't refer to anything that isn't terrorism as terrorism. It might be censorship or vandalism or disruption. But terrorism is something else entirely. There is no terror involved in what you describe above and associating the term with it helps to undermine fear of the real kind. Terrorism should not be taken lightly. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:48, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::TK, I agree with you completely that people probably need to be "invited" to leave. My only problem is that this is done under the guise of 90/10 rule. I think this is done so that Andy can still claim something like "We don't ask editors to leave because they have a certain viewpoint, only Wikipedia does that." Make too many liberal edits, though, and you'll find that you have somehow violated the 90/10 rule. I say drop the deceit and just ban people with the comment "We don't like your viewpoint. Goodbye." It's about being honest about what kind of place this wiki really is. [[User:RobNewberry|RobNewberry]] 11:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::Ajkgordon, one definition of "terrorism" is "intimidating gang activity". Regardless of your rather parochial idea of its meaning, kindly refrain from saying something I clearly labeled as my own opinion, invention, is wrong usage. Organized activity, like from ''certain groups'', to disrupt other boards or wiki's, no matter how loosely organized, if it is at all coordinated, is intimidation, ergo, "terrorism".

:::RobNewberry, I know that when I was an administrator, I often followed Andy's lead in doing just that, block with the comment "Bye". As Schlafly often says, it isn't very hard to copy edit, add a source a few times a day, especially if one is spending hours and hours debating on talk pages. A person doing that, and not being obnoxious, they shouldn't be blocked. But I mostly see people with absolutely no contributions to CP, and looking at their history see only talk page posts, being blocked. Someone constantly reverting an article because of idealogical disagreement, and making no other contributions, should be blocked, or have the good grace to leave. There is more than one way to run a wiki. That's why they come with settings. Some wiki's require review of submissions before going live. Some require registration in order to edit, others do not. You sound fairly reasonable, obviously an informed person. Surely you can understand how people would grow tired of debating a topic without end. If you don't go to Wikipedia and try to insert something favorable about George W. Bush, Dick Cheney or Ann Coulter. Then when you are reverted, change it back. I don't think your experience will be a pleasant one. ;-) ----[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:12, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::RobNewberry, your own comments are misleading and illustrate the problem, because now I have to waste my time correcting them. The [[90/10 rule]] applies to people who talk, talk, talk without redeeming value in the way of substantive contributions. Nothing could be simpler. Talk is a time-waster. Different viewpoints, if logical, are welcome here. Incessant talk as can be seen on countless other sites, is not. The talkers can rant elsewhere. We're here to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:37, 18 November 2008 (EST)
:::::Andy, you're being very dishonest about the application of the rule. Your explanation of it includes several value judgments - "different viewpoints, if logical" - all we're arguing is that your definition of "logical" is "that which agrees with you." That's where the discrimination we're talking about comes from.
:::::Interestingly, while you spend some time characterizing anyone disagreeing with you as "liberal censorship," in a somewhat dishonest definition of "censorship," you seem unable to recognize that what you're doing is REAL censorship, the use of power (rather than argument & debate) to squelch uncomfortable beliefs. Open your mind.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 12:54, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::::TK, if your definition is from Mirriam-Webster's, then it's '''''violent and''' intimidating gang activity''.
::::My request was but a courteous plea for proper usage of the term for a current and dangerous phenomenon. Scattering the term around and using it to define childish, irreverent and irritating vandalism degrades the purity of the term and lessens its impact when correctly using it. If that's parochial, so be it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:47, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::TK and Andy, let me ask you a question. If you visited Wikipedia, and saw that, say, the Dick Cheney article contained an unreferenced assertion or an unfounded attack, you would initially try to edit and fix that problem, correct? Then, if another WP editor reverted your edit (which you believed was completely correct), you might either undo the reversion, or you might make a comment on the Talk Page, right? Now, here on CP, those of us who see something that ''we'' believe is incorrect or unfounded usually face a few problems. (Do not assume that all of us have evil intent against you - I'm entirely happy for you to have a conservative-leaning encyclopedia, and simply wish the information be factually correct and credibly referenced). First, the article may be locked, as this article is. In which case, there's nowhere to make the complaint except on the Talk Page. Second, if we can make them, our edits are often reverted, often with no supporting data provided (cf the Muslim debate here), so we usually have to make a comment on the Talk Page about that fact. It only takes one back and forth comment as we debate our position before a 90/10 block is usually enacted. Finally, those of us who frequent CP in an attempt to monitor the extreme forms of distortion that crop up now and again (as per any online community) may be shy of actually editing the articles, since bans are so often administered, so we instead first make our comments on the Talk Page. Frequently, a new user's single comment on a Talk Page is enough for a 90/10 ban. So it's pretty hard to believe that 90/10 is really about 90/10 when there are often no other options but Talk. And it's pretty hard to believe you're interested in establishing 'trustworthyness' if you aren't prepared to listen to evidence from other perspectives. [[User:FredX|FredX]] 12:49, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::: FredX, users can talk all they want, as long as they contribute substance at the same time. It's easy to contribute substance. It's the reason we're here. No project can succeed if the participants do nothing but talk. Try it at work sometime if you don't believe me.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:::::::Andy, consider this: "talk talk talk" is useful if it's being done to convince you, the only person with control over the article, that you're wrong. Talk towards the truth is not useless talk: it's incredibly substantive. As it stands now, it's you, Bugler, and TK versus everyone else on the site. It might be time to recognize that all this talk has the "substance" of proving your error.-[[User:KiraN|KiraN]] 13:08, 18 November 2008 (EST)

FredX, having a Conservative/Christian - friendly encyclopedia does not obligate CP to prostitute those beliefs by allowing people who are not Christians, who are not Conservatives, to alter articles or their tone, to fit their outlook. The truth is the truth, but truth is always in the eye of the beholder, no? You and I could argue 24/7, over the existence of God, to use an example. No matter how many "facts" you presented me with, it would not alter my ''knowing'' he exists. Political and religious thought is highly subjective. One mans "distortion" is another mans valid "truth". To repeatedly try to alter someone's beliefs is a form of bullying. Read what you are saying. No one has the obligation to appoint himself "Internet Monitor of Truth". Your conventions of how a wiki-encyclopedia come from where? It is totally lacking in logic to think the conventions of one place should be used at another. If I go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post, and appoint myself the "truth" monitor there, what would happen?

If you have a complaint, you can always avail yourself the email links to other users. Or post your objection on the author's talk page. We aren't talking here about people objecting. We are talking about people who will not take "no" for an answer, and demand that their truth is better than another's. Once your point is made, posted, doing it again and again, without end, accomplishes what, other than you being able to vent? I don't spend time arguing with liberals at the Kos or HuffPo, because I know they do not agree with me, never will. I am not a YEC, yet I am here. What would be accomplished for me to argue, without end, with Philip Rayment (to use a known example of a YEC member here) over the age of the Earth? His "facts" as to Earth's age, are his. Mine are mine. In building an encyclopedia, or in any project, the trick is to focus on the areas we can agree on, and not let those we don't bog us down. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:18, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Talking with enemies ==

In the section '''"statements"''' Obama is criticised for claiming Roosevelt spoke to our enemies. Now it is true that Roosevelt did not talk to Hitler, but he certainly ''did'' talk to Stalin, who most Americans consider (and hesitantly considered back then) an enemy, and it is Stalin that Obama is presumably referring to. Rather than letting Hitler conquer Russia while the United States kept to its own war effort, or letting Patton continue on to Warsaw and Moscow after victory against Germany, Roosevelt was willing to talk to the Communist Enemy to co-ordinate action and to ultimately permit the Bolshevik conquest of eastern Europe. Naturally there are divergent opinions over whether in this particular case compromise was the best course of action, but what Obama is obviously expressing when he refers to Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy, all of whom negotiated with the Soviet enemy, is that it's better to come to talk with and possibly compromise with an opponent we may feel ideologically at polar opposites with instead of just blindly fighting whenever the oppurtunity presents itself.

For that reason it is advisable that the section is removed as it relies on the assumption that Obama was referring exclusively to Truman and Roosevelt's relationship with Hitler rather than with Stalin, and I would do so myself if the article was not unfortunately locked. [[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 12:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Your reasoning is confused, and your conclusion makes no sense at all.

:Compromising with an enemy is often the wrong thing to do. Your [[all or nothing]] analysis doesn't support it: it's rarely a case of "give in or fight blindly". Perhaps you have assumed that America only '''felt''' it was ideologically at a polar opposite from atheism and totalitarianism. This is [[liberal dogma]], not CP editorial policy. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:52, 18 November 2008 (EST)

::You misunderstand completely. ''I'' didn't say anything about whether or not America should compromise - Obama did. Whether or not it should has absolutely nothing to do with the issue I was raising.

::What I was saying was that the section is trying to make it seem that Obama has no grasp of history, that he was claiming that Roosevelt and Truman talked to our enemies (assumed to be Hitler, Mussolini and Hideki) when those Presidents didn't. However, Roosevelt and Truman did talk to our enemies, namely Stalin. Obama was referring to the talks Roosevelt and Truman had with ''Stalin'', not Hitler, and thus he was right to claim that Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy talked to our enemies. Therefore the section is false, not because we should compromise with our enemies, but because Obama did not make a mistake as the section apparently claims.

::Hopefully I have made myself more clear. But I will repeat to make sure: I am not saying anything about whether or not it is right to compromise with enemies. I am not saying that the communists were only apparently our enemies - in fact by suggesting that Roosevelt did not talk with enemies when he clearly talked with Stalin the section in the ''article'' implies that Stalin was not really an enemy. What I am saying is that Obama was perfectly justified in saying that Roosevelt and Truman talked and compromised with our enemies. This does not means exactly what it says, ''not'' that compromising with our enemies was perfectly justified. I apologise if I was not clear the first time, that's why I've rephrased the same point a second and third time.[[User:JHanson|JHanson]] 13:30, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== compared to wikipedia article ==

It is interesting that the wikipedia articles on Obama does not mention Pakistan. In fact, his three week trip to Pakistan was documented in a New York Times article, but metion of it was removed at wikipedia with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama&diff=252397639&oldid=252397137 this edit]. It looks like some wiki contributors are running interferance at wikipedia. The conservapedia article is a nice balance to that article, though the part that he "may be sworn into office at his inauguration ... using the Koran" is dodgy, and sounds almost National Enquirer-ish. I think the wording could be improved, though I haven't looked into it. It would not surprise me if Barack Obama were a Muslim, and it would not surprise me if he were a liberal Christian with weakly held beliefs and a fondness for his early teachings. At wikipedia, I also didn't see any mention of Bill Ayers on Obama pages. That is very strange. The sad part is, if President Obama appointed Bill Ayers to be the head of the Department of Education, I don't think we would see much difference in the American education system--at least in the public schools--as people that think like him are already in control. Anyway, keep up the good work. [[User:BigMike|BigMike]] 12:58, 18 November 2008 (EST)

:Good points, BigMike! --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:24, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Suggestion for comprimise ==

Since it's clear that none of the editors involved are going to be able to agree, why don't we take Mr. Schlafly's advice [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Barack_Obama&diff=554261&oldid=554228 earlier on this talk page] where he says "We don't censor informative information here. Let the reader decide." How about, instead of going back and forth, back and forth, we instead allow the inclusion of evidence ''against'' Obama being a Muslim. The reader can read the evidence on both sides, and decide for themselves. Good idea? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:26, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-11-18T17:40:47Z

JHanson: statements