Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

McDonald's

2007-03-27T13:07:33Z

Jack Ketch: New page: '''McDonald's''' is '''the''' american fast food chain. Besides selling fast food McDonald's contributes to the development of the world through bringing work in underdeveloped countries a...

'''McDonald's''' is '''the''' american fast food chain. Besides selling fast food McDonald's contributes to the development of the world through bringing work in underdeveloped countries and establishing a local supply chain. So McDonald's creates more jobs than those in its own restaurants and acts as an ambassador of western values.

==Criticism==
McDonald's has often been accused of knowingly selling unhealthy food. McDonald's states that health is not only an issue of food but also of a balanced active lifestyle. The 'Documentation' 'Super Size Me' aimed at proving that McDonald's had no interest in healthy customers whatsoever. The movie though was done in a [[Michael Moore]] style, so it might be considered that this movie was part of a plot against McDonald's.

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-03-27T10:31:30Z

Jack Ketch:

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Necessary==
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

==Good==

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.

Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without cause other than religios orientation is sin. The Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.

Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful. As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight. When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre. We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful. The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful. I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly

Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.

: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong. If you believe that all wars are sinful. Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all. If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would stop them by force or would you watch them get killed. This is the same thing with a war on a national level. Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation. The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died. The Ten Comandments says "Thy Shalt Not Kill", but are you not killing when you refuse to defend the defenseless? For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed. I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist. Deborah G.

---
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---

However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. ---

As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends & family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---

Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B

If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)

: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term "Mohammedan" because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term "moslem" or "muslim" to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)

::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.

::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force. However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today). These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status. Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations. The rise of Islam disrupted this.

::The first four Crusades were an attempt to "roll back" the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide. Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists. By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed. Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.

::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east. Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it. It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations. So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.

::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years. This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.

::Today, a half millenium later, when the world is much smaller because of the ease of travel and communications, we've discovered the very problems that (1) caused the Crusades, and (2) led to the discovery of America, had never been dealt with, and now we are faced with the same problems decision makers and problem solvers of centuries ago were faced with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Please could you provide your sources for the "disruption of trade" leading to economic problems in Western Europe? My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright. There were economic factors at work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an "economic factor". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Comment==

Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism.

Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out. It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.

Talk:Angela Merkel

2007-03-27T10:22:33Z

Jack Ketch:

==Atheism==
The GDR (not to be mixed with the Federal Republic of Germany, known nowadays as 'Germany') disapproved Religion in any form. If she would have been a christian she would never had the possibility to study there. But I have to admit that I do not have a source at hand.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 05:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:How can she be part of a Christian party but not be Christian? That doesn't seem right (but I don't have proof either way).

::It's the party to be in if you support free economics. Although there is only one MP in Germany who frankly admits that she is an atheist, even in that 'christian' party you can find people who support abortion (i.e. Rita Suessmuth, former Presidentof the Parlaiment), which clearly shows that 'christian' is nothing but an empty phrase in that parties name.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:22, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Europe

2007-03-27T10:13:19Z

Jack Ketch:

{{stub}}

Europe comprises a large peninsula on the West of the Eurasian land mass. It stretches from the [[Ural]] Mountains in [[Siberia]], in the East to the Western coast of Spain and Portugal in the West. The continent also includes the Islands of [[Great Britain]], [[Ireland]] and [[Iceland]]. It is bounded to the North aby the [[Arctic]] Ocean, and to the south by the [[Mediterranean]] sea.
It is home to more than 10% of the worlds population (Around 600,000,000) yet covers only 2% of the land.
Europe is geographically and culturaly very diverse.

Politically it is split in 'Old Europe' which refuses to be part of the coalition of the willing and our Allies. [[Austria]] even refused to let Coalition Troops pass its airspace.

The [[European Union]] comprises 27 seperate states and has the highest GDP of any political entity in the world.

Major countries include [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Spain]], [[Italy]], and the [[United Kingdom]].

[[Image:Europe_Map.gif]]

[[Category:Continents]]

Saudi Arabia

2007-03-26T17:48:43Z

Jack Ketch: Noteable Saudi Arabians

'''Saudi Arabia''' is a country in the [[Middle East]] which is under [[Sharia]] law, the legal system put down after Muhammad's death. It was founded in 1902 by [[Abul Ibn Saudi]], a member of the royal House of Saudi.

Saudi Arabia is mostly a desert country, but it is rich in [[oil]] and date palms.

==Noteable Saudi Arabians==
[[Osama Bin Laden]]

[[Category:Countries]]

France

2007-03-26T17:28:51Z

Jack Ketch: perfume

{{stub}}
[[Image:map_of_france.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Map of France]]
France is a country in Western Europe.

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

A long standing tradition is the production and usage of perfume, which bloomed during the days of King Louis XIV in Versailles. Even today France is the largest European consumer of perfume and deodorants which - according to the national newspaper Le Figaro - is based on the fact that only 47% of the french shower every day.[http://www.embarrassingproblems.co.uk/sweating_a.htm]

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU. It greatly assisted then-Great Britain's North American colonies both militarily and financially in their effort to gain independence, and established universal legal codes in much of the non-Anglo-Saxon west. It has made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and post modernism. It gifted the Statue of Liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoing the French aid given to the colonies during the American Revolutionary War.

In March of 2003 A.D., France did not participate in the alliance that liberated [[Iraq]], with its aim of removing the [[Baathist]] regime of the dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], despite the clearly proven fact that Saddam Hussein was producing chemical and biological weapons which were found and destroyed by US troops.<ref>http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon06172004.html</ref>

==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called Gaul. It was home to many fierce Saxon tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] personally led the invasion.

==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the Franks, a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland

[[Category:Countries]]

France

2007-03-26T17:03:36Z

Jack Ketch:

{{stub}}
[[Image:map_of_france.jpg|thumbnail|right|250px|Map of France]]
France is a country in Western Europe.

At its height, the French Empire rivaled the British Empire, with colonies in every corner of the world. It continues to be a strong presence in academia and has been the birthplace of countless renowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], often at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its renown for a center of learning and philosophy.

It was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which led to the EEC and EU. It greatly assisted then-Great Britain's North American colonies both militarily and financially in their effort to gain independence, and established universal legal codes in much of the non-Anglo-Saxon west. It has made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and post modernism. It gifted the Statue of Liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoing the French aid given to the colonies during the American Revolutionary War.

In March of 2003 A.D., France did not participate in the alliance that liberated [[Iraq]], with its aim of removing the [[Baathist]] regime of the dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], despite the clearly proven fact that Saddam Hussein was producing chemical and biological weapons which were found and destroyed by US troops..

==Gaul==
Back during the time of the [[Roman Republic]], France was a territory called Gaul. It was home to many fierce Saxon tribes. [[Julius Caesar]] personally led the invasion.

==Frankland under Clovis==
France is named after the Franks, a Saxon tribe who established Soissons, the capital. A Frank called [[Clovis]] united the Franks and established Frankland

[[Category:Countries]]

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

2007-03-26T16:46:07Z

Jack Ketch:

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

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

Yes

Yes. Three major factors could contribute to this. One being that our allies were about to fall to the seemingly unstoppable German war machine. Two, the Germans and their allies were sinking ships carrying American citizens. We had every right in the world to go forward and protect not only our allies, but our own citizens. Three, we were experiencing a slump in our economy and needed something to drive the prices back up.
--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Another reason not listed above is that in early 1917, Germany's foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, sent a coded telegram to Germany's ambassador to Mexico promised that if Mexico declared war on the United States, Germany would help give back Mexico the territories it lost (Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, also known as the Mexico Cession) in the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War.
--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 16:54, 17 March 2007

==='''no...'''===

Because the Americans brought the so called 'Spanish flu' with them and that fearful disease managed to kill off nearly 20 million mostly young European citizens far more than were actually killed by the war. Of course it wasn't in any way meant. If the American soldiers had not been crowded together in their vast training camps perhaps the virus would not have developed and the many Americans who died from this pandemic would also have been saved.

If the Europeans would have settled their issues on there own, there would have been a tie in the end, or maybe Austria/Germany would have won. In that case Hitler would not have arisen and WWII would never have occured, many Eastern European countries wouldn't have suffered communism.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler wouldn't have risen to power in Germany had it not been forced to pay war reparations as declared in the Treaty of Versailles. Woodrow Wilson didn't want to punish Germany as harshly as our allies did but no one really listened to Wilson. This is an example of Europeans settling their issues on their own which in turn caused WWII. Also, another example Europeans settling their issues on their own is when The Black Hand assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand which started WWI. So clearly your argument about letting Europeans settling their issues on their own is faulty.--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 22:12, 22 March 2007

::Kdude, you need read more closely what I wrote. My point is that Germany wouldn't have lost the war if the United States wouldn't have supported UK and France. So there would have been no need for reparations, ergo: no Hitler!--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 12:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

2007-03-22T10:46:23Z

Jack Ketch:

GDR

2007-03-21T10:20:48Z

Jack Ketch: New page: The '''German Democratic Republic''' was the eastern German State founded by German Communists in 1949. It was backed by the USSR who had a strategic interest in this most western forepost...

The '''German Democratic Republic''' was the eastern German State founded by German Communists in 1949. It was backed by the USSR who had a strategic interest in this most western forepost. However, it vanished from existence in 1989 by a peaceful revolution.
Unlike other socialist countries there were actually several Parties allowed (hence the name 'Democratic' Republic), but their influence was limited by law.

Talk:Angela Merkel

2007-03-21T09:52:54Z

Jack Ketch: New page: ==Atheism== The GDR (not to be mixed with the Federal Republic of Germany, known nowadays as 'Germany') disapproved Religion in any form. If she would have been a christian she would never...

Angela Merkel

2007-03-21T09:40:48Z

Jack Ketch: New article, chancellor of Germany, some backgrounf

'''Angela Merkel''' is the leader of the German Cristian Democratic Party and the current Chancellor of Germany. Despite being a member of this christian party she is an atheist. She was born and raised in the former GDR (German Democratic Republic - which was in fact a socialist sock puppet of Russia) where she also studied Physics. Considering the fact that only 'loyal' people were allowed to study in the GDR and her atheism the reader will now, how 'conservative' she really is.