Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story

2008-04-08T20:06:37Z

JackThomson: Inspired Word of God or Not

Very interesting exegisis. However, once you open the door to historical scholarship of authorship of the various books of the bible, i dont think you will be pleased with the results. It is, however, a wonderful, vibrant field of scholarship.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 21:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:I too have followed this trend, you speak of. However, I do question the wisdom of deconstructing ancient texts, merely to remove the scholarly foundations for modern day Liberal babble. The parable attributed to Jesus is a valuable one, a logical argument for man not to talk out of both sides of his mouth, eh?--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Official Bible translations already recognize that the passage is not authentic. Yet why is it increasingly taught anyway? Because it has an unmistakable liberal spin to it. Let's point out the obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed! But please don't mistake the musings of someone in advanced middle-age for dissent, but merely waxing nostalgic for the time I remember when it was never considered acceptable (or tolerated, for that matter) to bastardize the teachings of the Bible and especially Jesus Christ, to further contemporary political agendas on the part of the Left. I was made to remember having that trend pointed out to me by Norvel Young, when he was still Chancellor at Pepperdine, as something to be vigilant about....--~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I fear my ignorance prevents me from fully understandcing Terry. Be that as it may, Andy, I understand your point, but if we are to "purge" the" bible of so-called non-original material, it should be done EVERYWHERE, which means some may have a result you like, some may not. Another big "however" is that the parable depends on interpretation, as all parables do. So, you could interpret it as a liberal allegory against the death penalty (although if it was added to the bible, it was done very long ago, before the debate was relevant), or one could see it as a simple plea for Christian Mercy and the recognition of sin present in us all. It does not say anywhere never to kill anyone...that is preserved for the Ten Commandments (and even that wording is subject to interpretation). There is nothing inherent in the parable against the death penalty, simply a recognition that the judgement of man is inherently flawed, especially when measured againg the judgement of the Lord. It does make for an interesting sermon, though.
Really it comes down to how you define Biblical literalism. Is the Bible word-for-word true? Which Bible? Which translation? The Apocrypha? The Gnostic Gospels? I don't know the answer. In Judaism, for instance, ancient scholars essentially recognized that Man's understanding is non-divine, therefore flawed, and they spent centuries trying to fully understand the word of God as layed out in the Tanakh (the Jewish portions of the Bible). Christianity has certainly had millenia of interpreters.
The biggest problem, though, is that stated above. Canon was set down long ago. What is included in the Bible has been there for a long time. If you wish to created a new Canon, terrific...it's a huge and interesting task. Be careful, however, about reading modern motivations into ancient voices, such as this (perhaps later-included) parable. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 00:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't necessarily think that this has a "liberal bent", particularly because I've always interpreted this passage (not knowing the controversy over its inclusion in the Bible) as I've thought that Jesus let the woman go because the men were not interested in the woman, but only trying to trap Jesus (notice they never tried to do anything with the man that was presumably also involved in the adultery). [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 00:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The title misspells Adulteress. The text has a correct spelling. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:14, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

The essay says "This story is not found anywhere else, and its claim of Jesus bending down "to write on the ground with his finger" is found nowhere else." Without the other claims to its inauthenticity, this is a weak one. There are many things that are found in one gospel but not in others.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

John's Gospel was essentially a "cutting and pasting" of other works, careful reading will show that there are several literary seams. Besides, many parts of the New testament were added later or are by pseudonymous authors calling themselves Paul. Are you suggesting that several epistles be removed, including most of the resurrection story at the end of Mark. This "research" is "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Besides, it's scripture and officially recognized as canon and sacred and you yourself cannot decide what does and does not belong based on interpretations of it. [[User:Midnus|Midnus]]

:The style is actually very Johannine, and the message it transmits is actually central to understanding Christ throughout the entire New Testament! What is Yeshua actually saying? He isn't saying that it is wrong to make moral judgements, and in fact at John 7:24 He says quite clearly: "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." So why does He speak of those present needing to be without sin? Because they were complicit in setting a trap for Him, using this woman as bait. "[They] said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him." The Jews no longer had the right to execute, as this had been removed by the Romans in AD 30. So if He said that she should be executed, they would accuse Him of sedition against the Romans, and if He ordered her to be released, they would accuse Him of breaking Mosaic law. A very cleverly sprung trap. But Yeshua is the AUTHOR of the Law, and He knows full well that both parties were to be produced and prosecuted ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deut.%2022:22;&version=31; Deut. 22:22]). Yeshua understands the set-up, as would contemporary readers. We don't even know if adultery ''had'' been committed, that the woman herself isn't part of the trap. But He makes it quite clear that He sees their conspiracy, which is why He won't codemn nor pardon as they want Him to, but instead asks all present to examine their own parts, their own guilt in this. He even puts them on the spot to go ahead and do what they are asking Him to do.

:Does He give license to sin with His words to the throng and the woman? Of course not - ''He gives forgiveness, the central tenet of the Christian religion, as only He can!'' He is willing to pay the penalty for her sins Himself - "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. '''But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense''' — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. '''He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world'''." ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%202:1-2;&version=31; 1 John 2:1-2]).

:Does this passage appear in ''all'' early manuscripts? No. Does that mean it was an addition? Or more likely a deliberate ommission? The early church fathers accepted it and quoted it, and Ambrose and Augustine were both quite sure that it was an ommission not an addition. Why ommit it? Because its message of forgiveness, of G-d accepting that we can sin but reform, didn't sit comfortably with those who wanted a religion which gave more latitude to condemn than forgive. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Well put, Fox. I wouldn't know about all that background material (e.g. Ambrose and Augustine), but certainly I've never had a problem with the passage when sceptics have quoted it at me. The Bible was written for 'a "high context" society -- background data is assumed to be known; no need is seen to re-explain things again and again that the readers already know'[http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty200.html]. That is, the people of the time (actually, most cultures throughout time) would have understood that when Jesus referred to those "without sin", He ''could not'' have been meaning ''without any sin at all'', but something more specific and relevant, such as ''sin related to this issue'', whether that be their own infidelities or their sin of setting him up. As such, sceptic use of this passage to teach against the death penalty or against judging another is misplaced in any case, and we don't have to resort to saying that the passage should not be there in order to answer it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

:::I agree too. I think it's extremely dangerous and misguided to embroil the teachings of Christ into the polarised politics of today. That way leads to fragmentation and internal strive within the broad church and, let's face it, it doesn't need any more of that. This insistence on trying to equate being a good Christian with being a conservative is too ridiculous for words. Christianity is supposed to be about inclusion and tolerance, a couple of traits sorely lacking here. Of course using Christ's teachings to argue about particular issues such as abortion or morality is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable. But equating them with left and right is simply shallow and not at all theological. While liberals may well be more predisposed to be agnostics or atheists, that by no means makes none of them Christians. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 18:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: [[Atheism]] and much of [[liberal]] ideology is antithetical to Christian values. There's no denying it. The adultress story is plainly not authentic and it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda. Enough said - the story should be recognized to be phony.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::OK. I'll inform the Vatican. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:25, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
::::: "The adultress story is plainly not authentic...": No, this is not plain at all. In fact, it sounds very much like you are saying that it doesn't ''appear'' to be authentic, rather than having actual reasons. If so, this is you making yourself the judge of what's canonical and what's not. However, perhaps you meant that ''the evidence'' is plainly on the side of it being not authentic. Some do agree with you that the evidence is sufficient, but others don't agree, so I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is ''plainly'' not authentic.
::::: "''...it is used to advance a [[liberal]] political agenda.''": So is Matthew 7:1 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged"). Does that mean that Matthew 7:1 doesn't belong either? No, this is not a valid reason.
::::: The ''only'' valid reason is convincing evidence that it was added later. All other reasons are invalid, meaningless, or heretical.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:48, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Scholars agree and the documentary evidence proves that the adultress story was added later. Motivation (politics) is relevant to understanding why logic and proof are rejected, and why the passage remains in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:13, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

::::::: I've done a quick bit of research, and it does appear that ''most'' scholars believe that it was added later, and their evidence does appear to be sound. Interestingly some who believe that it was added later (and is therefore not canonical) also believe that it's likely that the account is ''true'', just not put there by John. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:53, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: It makes no sense for a scholar (a liberal one?) to insist that the story was added later but is still true. John did not release his Gospel until longer after all the other Apostles, and likely all the eyewitnesses, had died. There is no basis for asserting that the fraudulently added story is still true, and many reasons to conclude it is not true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
Are you suggesting that someone that argues that the account does not belong in the Bible is a liberal?

According to a Samuel P. Tregelles in 1854:
{{QuoteBox|Though I am fully satisfied that this narration is not a genuine part of St. John's Gospel, and though I regard the endeavors to make the evidence appear satisfactory to be such as would involve all Holy Scripture in a mist of uncertainty, I see no reason for doubting that it contains a true narration. There is nothing unworthy of the acting of the Lord Jesus detailed in this history. And thus I accept the narrative as true, although its form and phraseology are wholly uncertain, and although I do not believe it to be a divine record. No doubt, that there were many narrations current in the early church of some of the many unrecorded actions of our Lord, and the only wonder is that more have not been transmitted to us. This, from the variety of its forms, seems to have been handed down through more than one channel. Perhaps some one added it at the end of John's Gospel [one of the places it is found in some manuscripts—PJR], as one of the "many things which Jesus did which are not written in this book," and others afterwards placed it where it seemed to them to belong.}}
Bruce Metzger:
{{QuoteBox|...the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive. 
At the same time the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places.}}
Raymond E. Brown:
{{QuoteBox|However, a good case can be argued that the story had its origins in the East and is truly ancient (see Schilling, art. cit.). ... From the standpoint of internal criticism, the story is quite plausible and quite like some of the other gospel stories of attempts to trap Jesus (Luke xx 20, 27). There is nothing in the story itself or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus. Becker argues strongly for this thesis.}}
These are from [http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html here]. What reasons do you have for asserting that it is ''not'' true?

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Apparently the above three quoted individuals like the story, but that's no justification for giving in to a hoax. The story has unmistakable [[liberal]] overtones and that is a "reason for doubting that it contains a true narration." Details of the story (like Jesus writing, or crediting an inherent value to age, or obtaining 100% acceptance of his teaching) are non-existent or even disproved by authentic portions of the New Testament.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:I am unfamiliar with these other scholars, but Bruce Metzger was one of the most well known conservative biblical scholars of the 20th century. He was certainly no liberal. I do not see how the fact that their interpretation of the origin of the story directly equates to whether they like the story or not - there is no room for personal opinion or likes in sound biblical exegesis. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:49, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== What Constitutes Gospel? ==

I think Fox has a convincing take on why this may not be an addition. But even if it's not original, I have to ask how we can be sure that the Almighty wasn't working through whoever added it. {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}

: Your faulty logic would apply to anything, including additions or amendments to today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:08, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, what's the fault in it? When did God stop talking to and acting through man? {{unsigned|DLaGrange}}
: The Bible indicates that it is complete. Anything added after it is complete is not canonical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:39, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, and the adultress story was indisputably added later. Even the evangelical, conservative translation (NIV) expressly notes that in its version.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Yup. It has brackets around it in mine but curiously doesn't say why. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:45, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::: It is not "indisputably" added later. Some ''do'' dispute it. The NIV's note (I'd be surprised if yours doesn't say why, Ajkgordon), does not say that it was added later. It says, "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.". The ''implication'' is that it was added later, but being added later is not what the NIV ''says''. And the implication could be wrong. I'm not saying that it ''is'' wrong; just that it could be. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:52, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::It might, Philip, but I can't see it. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 10:54, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
::::Begging your pardon. It's the King James and it makes no mention at all, not even brackets. I must have been thinking of another version. My apologies. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:02, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

== A reason to "conserve" the story ==

Mr. Schlafly, thank you for this essay. I don't know why I overlooked it up to now.

You make a very good point about how liberals misuse the admonition, "Don't judge":

* The answer lies in its liberal message: do not criticize or punish immoral conduct unless you are perfect yourself. But one need not be perfect before he can recognize and punish wrongdoing in himself and others. Civilized society may not depend on stoning to deter immoral crimes, but it does depend on retribution enforced by people who are themselves sinners.

Liberals are obviously hypocritical about this, making most of their political ideas into moral issues (e.g., "saving" the environment) and then criticizing others who don't adopt their ideas - often even while violating their own moral dictates themselves. [[Hypocrisy]] and [[double standards]] are generally a smokescreen to cover up one's own wrong-doing.

Another interpretation of the [[Jesus and the adulterous woman]] story is that of God's [[mercy]] and forgiveness. When I've taught this story in Sunday School, I tell the children that the key points are:

#Jesus does not condemn the woman to immediate execution by mob violence, but he does not excuse the act of adultery either
#He shames each member of the mob by "writing on the ground" - we can only speculate on what Jesus wrote, but wouldn't it be interesting if it was the sins committed by the accusers?
#He admonishes the woman to stop sinning: "Go and sin no more"

A conservative interpretation of the story might be that God still '''disapproves of sin''' and yet is not always willing that a sinner be punished. The point being that He desires obedience to His moral rules, and if a magnanimous act of mercy can encourage a sinner to repent this could be an effective mode of preaching. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 06:59, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

: Ed, you've put the best face on a hoax. But it's still a hoax, and a [[liberal]] one at that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::Of course, now that you've shattered people's faith on ONE part of the Bible, what possible reason do they have to believe any of the rest of it? Are you going to "debunk" the Sermon On The Mount next, or maybe the [http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2001/02/07/solomon/index.html Book of Exodus]? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 11:34, 8 April 2008 (EDT)
::: The actual argument (despite impressions you might get from Andy's comments about it being loved by liberals) is that the ''manuscript evidence'' shows that the passage doesn't belong in the Bible. You cannot make that argument against almost all the rest of the Bible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::: Gulik5's argument may appeal to the dimwitted, but not to anyone else who values reasoned analysis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Precisely. And in my analysis, this particular passage is apparently an afterthought, and tacking on extra text goes against Christian thought, as I think Philip explained above. Moreover, the main problem with the story is that - even if it were considered legitimate, the wrong lesson is being taught from it. Jesus never said we shouldn't evaluate the actions of other people as right or wrong and "look only" at our own selves. That false lesson is used by defenders of all sorts of moral evils, when they argue that "according to your own rules you can't judge anyone". I guess they think only they have the right to judge and condemn and order people around, but the Bible does not approve of their opposition to properly constituted authority. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:57, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Gulik5 may have a point. After all, Timothy I, Timothy II, and Titus reflect a level of Church organization that did not exist at that early date. Consider also the lengthy interlocution in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Paul's Greek was very good, but in Corinthians I, there is a long run on sentence, that does not fit with the rest of Pauline corpus--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 14:44, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Another thought is that Aschlafly may be on to something here. If the Bible has these fabrications and additions that were added in later, maybe we need to carefully examine the veracity of much of the Bible.--[[User:Mathewson|Mathewson]] 15:41, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

== Inspired Word of God or Not ==

I trust God to hand The Bible to us in it's correct and accurate form. I have to. The Bible is the inspired Word of God as it has passed through many human hands. I trust God to do His work in this respect and ensure His Word is kept accurate, true and Holy. Clearly you do not trust God in this regard. I think you have crossed a line here.

I resign from this project and request you delete my account. I would also request (although of course I acknowledge I am in no position to demand this) that you delete my name from any part of Conservapedia to which I have contributed with the sole exception of this comment. Re-write The Bible any way you wish. Count me out. While you do it you may wish to think hard about Revelation 22:18-21

Amen. Good-bye, Conservapedia.
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.

Take solace in your [[last wordism]] of which you are so quick to accuse others. I won't be back to read it. [[User:JackThomson|JThomson]] 16:06, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Simon and Garfunkel

2008-04-01T13:23:24Z

JackThomson:

'''Paul Frederic Simon''' was born on October 13, 1941 in Newark, [[New Jersey]], moving to Queens in [[New York City]], where while attending elementary school he met New Yorker '''Arthur Garfunkel''' who was also born in 1941 on November 5th.

Naming themselves Tom and Jerry, in 1957 they first tasted success as recording artists when their song “Hey Schoolgirl” was a minor hit. After graduating from high school, Simon attended Queens College, while Garfunkel chose [[Columbia University]] in [[Manhattan]].

Signed by Columbia Records in 1964, Simon and Garfunkel's first album, “Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M.” initially received little attention until radio stations began airing “Sound of Silence,” that would eventually climb to the top of the national Hit Parade, giving Simon and Garfunkel their first million selling single in 1966. In that same year it was followed by four more big hits, a second gold record for “Homeward Bound,” “I Am A Rock,” “The Dangling conversation” and “A Hazy Shade of Winter.” In 1967, “At The Zoo” hit the charts with “Scarborough Fair” and another chart topper from the motion picture The Graduate, “Mrs. Robinson.” Radio saturated the airwaves with “The Boxer” in 1969, giving the duo another top ten hit but it was in the next year, 1970, that Simon and Garfunkel’s “Bridge Over Troubled Water” leaped to the top of the Hit Parade “Cecilia” and “El Condor Pasa” following. “My Little Town” earned more gold in 1975.

Their Greatest Hits album has sold in excess of 15 million copies in the [[United States]] alone.

In 1971, their “Bridge Over Troubled Water” album gave them Grammys for Album and Single of the Year as well as Song of the Year.

In 1990 Simon and Garfunkel was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

[[category:Music]]

Simon and Garfunkel

2008-04-01T13:22:40Z

JackThomson: Numerous typos including the various creative spellings of "Garfunkel"

'''Paul Frederic Simon''' was born on October 13, 1941 in Newark, [[New Jersey]], moving to Queens in [[New York City]], where while attending elementary school he met New Yorker '''Arthur Garfunkel''' who was also born in 1941 on November 5th.

Naming themselves Tom and Jerry, in 1957 they first tasted success as recording artists when their song “Hey Schoolgirl” was a minor hit. After graduating from high school, Simon attended Queens College, while Garfunkel chose [[Columbia University]] in [[Manhattan]].

Signed by Columbia Records in 1964, Simon and Garfunkel's first album, “Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M.” initially received little attention until radio stations began airing “Sound of Silence,” that would eventually climb to the top of the national Hit Parade, giving Simon and Garfunkel their first million selling single in 1966. In that same year it was followed by four more big hits, a second gold record for “Homeward Bound,” “I Am A Rock,” “The Dangling conversation” and “A Hazy Shade of Winter.” In 1967, “At The Zoo” hit the charts with “Scarborough Fair” and another chart topper from the motion picture The Graduate, “Mrs. Robinson.” Radio saturated the airwaves with “The Boxer” in 1969, giving the duo another top ten hit but it was in the next year, 1970, that Simon and Garfunkel’s “Bridge Over Troubled Water” leaped to the top of the Hit Parade “Cecilia” and “El Condor Pasa” following. “My Little Town” earned more gold in 1975.

Their Greatest Hits album has sold in excess of 15 million copies in the [[United States]] alone.

In 1971, their “Bridge Over Troubled Water” album gave them Grammys for album and Single of the Year as well as Song of the Year for the song of the same name.

In 1990 Simon and Garfunkel was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

[[category:Music]]

User talk:JackThomson

2008-03-31T10:34:51Z

JackThomson: Removing all content from page

British Broadcasting Corporation

2008-03-14T19:21:58Z

JackThomson: Added cite

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

It was founded in [[London]] in 1927 and is headquartered there.

The BBC is often criticized for political bias, particularly [[liberal]], and for being overly [[politically correct]].

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Questiontime'', ''Eastenders'', ''Planet Earth'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (US$270 approx) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such it is often criticised as being a tax.

In theory, funding by the licence fee means that BBC programmes are free of advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes, but BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless completely free of commercial advertising. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However, since the funding is determined by the government, the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. This arrangement means the government has to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given.<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldbbc/50/5006.htm</ref> This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case.

While there is a vocal campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people.

The BBC has a ten-year royal charter that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence. The BBC is ultimately responsible to its readers and listeners as well as to the [[BBC Trust]].

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to it's ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.

==Cultural Impact==
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly in the UK of broadcasting in those media. As such its content was highly influential. Since then the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of [[liberal bias]], it also receives accusations of cultural [[bias]], regional bias, [[political correctness]], bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinize governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias"
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC canceled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.

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

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Talk:Isle of Skye

2008-03-14T19:14:28Z

JackThomson: New page: I see my article has been the subject of political correctness sigh. Well I also see that this article is essentially a duplicate and another already exists called ...

I see my article has been the subject of [[Politically correct|political correctness]] sigh. Well I also see that this article is essentially a duplicate and another already exists called simply [[Skye]] - I should have checked more carefully before creating this. Perhaps the two should be merged with a redirect? I don't know how to do that. Or otherwise just delete this one. Now I see this site is as bad as [[wikipedia]] for imposing [[liberal]] language I've kind of lost the spirit to continue editing anyway. [[User:JackThomson|JThomson]] 15:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Isle of Skye

2008-03-14T16:52:52Z

JackThomson: New entry created

The Isle of Skye is the largest of the Western Isles off the coast of [[Scotland]]. Skye is best known for its many world class distilleries producing fine peaty whiskies, its [[golf]] courses and the Cuillin [[mountain]] range with its unique [[geology]] offering the most challenging mountaineering to be found anywhere in [[Britain]].

In common with many of the Western Isles, Skye is a very traditional and deeply religious community giving a strong sense of Scottish life before the invasion of [[political correctness]], [[Europe|European]] [[immigration]], and other [[liberal values]] that have afflicted much of mainland Scotland.

Munro

2008-03-14T16:29:10Z

JackThomson: New page created

A Munro is any distinct Scottish mountain over 3,000 feet in height. There are currently 284 [[mountains]] meeting this criteria. The list is occasionally revised as surveying techniques improve or arguments are settled over exactly what constitutes a ‘distinct’ mountain.

Many walkers in [[Britain]] attempt to complete the entire list of Murnos most of which are accessible to the average walker of reasonable fitness. The most difficult Munro, and the only one that requires genuine rock climbing ability, is the Inaccessible Pinnacle on the [[Isle of Skye]].

This arrangement makes completing the list a genuine achievement and provides a wholesome, healthy outdoor activity encompassing all of [[Scotland]] and attainable by anyone.

Liberal logic

2008-03-14T12:01:46Z

JackThomson:

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by a liberal that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible<ref>Anne Heche was frequently promoted by the media as the lesbian partner to Ellen DeGeneres, but later Anne Heche, who described herself as [[bisexual]], married a man and [[liberals]] avoided talking about the change.</ref>
# criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home. Liberals also often insist that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.</ref>
# no matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
# belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
# if [highly implausible assumption like "[[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis"], then would you support it (without any consideration of alternatives)?
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
# never admit shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often tell others they should be ashamed of themselves
# [[free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# insisting that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, but choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk
# requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, which actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while censorship for anything is [[Christian]]
# insisting that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex and associated disease
# denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime
# insisting that increasing taxes must increase government revenue, when often people just work less and revenues then decline
# Even though the [[Supreme Court]] overrules precedents every year by 5-4 votes, [[Roe v. Wade]] cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# The pronoun "he" has been used to include men and women for centuries, but [[liberals]] find that illogical today
# [[Liberals]] assert that [[global warming]] will cause MORE snow

(add to list)

==See also==

*[[Liberal bias]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]

British Broadcasting Corporation

2008-03-14T10:29:21Z

JackThomson: /* Funding */

[[Image:BBC Logo 1997-Present.png|right|thumb]]
The '''British Broadcasting Corporation''' (BBC) is the major national public service broadcaster of the [[United Kingdom]]. It is the leading broadcaster in the UK and is the largest broadcaster in the world by audience figures.

It was founded in [[London]] in 1927 and is headquartered there.

The BBC is often criticized for political bias, particularly liberal, and for being overly politically correct.

== Broadcasting ==
The BBC operates eight national television channels[http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/] in the UK and ten national radio stations[http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/]. Alongside these are its regional television services, which are variations of the national services, and separate regional radio stations.

The BBC produces many well-known television programmes, including ''The Ten O'Clock News'', ''Newsnight'', ''Questiontime'', ''Eastenders'', ''Planet Earth'', ''Holby City'', ''Casualty'', ''Top Gear'', ''Match of the Day'', ''Have I Got News For You'' and ''Doctor Who''.

Its best known TV channels in the UK are BBC 1 and BBC 2. The other channels are broadcast as digital-only services and are available to owners of terrestrial digital receiving equipment. BBC 1 typically shows more mainstream programmes while BBC 2 has a reputation for more diversity and special interest content.

Outside the UK the best known service is the BBC World Service radio network which transmits in 33 languages to an estimated 163 million listeners a week[http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2007/05_may/21/global.shtml]. The BBC operates a number of commercially-funded international television channels including BBC World, the international news channel.

== Funding ==
The BBC is a Crown corporation supported by a licensing fee applied to television owners<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/</ref> of £135.50 (US$270 approx) per year. All owners of TV receiving equipment are obliged to pay the fee whether they watch BBC content or not. As such it is often criticised as being a tax.

In theory, funding by the licence fee means that BBC programmes are free of advertising. However, it has some obligations to transmit statements by political parties and it advertises its own programmes, but BBC channels transmitted in the UK are nevertheless completely free of commercial advertising. This results in much greater non-advertising broadcasting time and uninterrupted broadcast of feature films. However the fact that the funding is determined by the government of the day means the BBC can be slow to criticise those in power. What is possibly worse is that this arrangement means the government have to do very little to apply pressure on the BBC and often the BBC will self regulate in favour of the government without any formal instruction being given. This in turn leads to the government and the BBC being able to declare independence and neutrality officially, while in reality this is far from the case. (see accusations of bias below)

While there is a vocal campaign to have the BBC changed into a commercial company, this appears highly unlikely to happen.

== Ownership ==
The BBC is an independent body which is held in trust for the British people.

The BBC has a ten-year royal charter that defines its purposes and allows it to act somewhat autonomously, free from commercial and government influence. The BBC is ultimately responsible to its readers and listeners as well as to the [[BBC Trust]].

==BBC News==
BBC News and Current Affairs is the largest news organisation in the world. It has at least 2,000 journalists and 44 news-gathering bureaus, three in the UK and 41 overseas. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/] It produces some 120 hours of news broadcasts daily.

News programmes are produced for both TV and radio stations. Much of the TV news programming is delivered in a few major news bulletins throughout the day, the most recognised of which is the flagship Ten O'Clock News in the evening on BBC1. On BBC radio, news is delivered in mostly smaller segments on the hour or half hour. However, the Today programme on Radio 4 is broadcast from 7am to 9am and is often considered the most influential news broadcast in the UK.

News produced by the BBC is made available and archived on the BBC news website.

==Internet==
The BBC has a news and archive website, one of the top twenty most popular English language websites. Like its TV and radio broadcasting it is not allowed to show advertising if the site is viewed from within the UK. This has prompted some criticism from within the BBC as it means funds from the licensing fee used for the website are not available for TV and radio programming. However, some costs of the site are now, since late 2007, offset by advertising to non-UK based visitors to the site.

Competitors have also criticised the BBC website due to it's ability to fund itself non-commercially without advertising to the detriment of its commercial competitors such as on-line versions of national newspapers and other news broadcasters such as Sky and ITN.

==Cultural Impact==
As the only TV broadcaster until the mid 1950s and only radio broadcaster until the mid 1970s, the BBC had a monopoly in the UK of broadcasting in those media. As such its content was highly influential. Since then the BBC, while exposed to high volumes and variable quality of competition, has remained popular with the British public and its cultural influence is still a major force. The BBC is considered the default choice by many when viewing major events such as breaking news or state occasions, even though competitors may be broadcasting the same content.

The BBC has had enormous influence over British attitudes to not just politics but also comedy, [[multiculturalism]], travel, natural history, international culture, popular trends, fashion and even the way the British speak. Through its foreign broadcasts on the BBC World Service, it has also had significant cultural influence outside the UK.

==Accusations of Bias==

The BBC has a long history of being criticised for bias. As well as persistent criticisms of liberal bias, it also receives accusations of cultural bias, regional bias, political correctness, bias towards multiculturalism and minority interests, and anti-government bias.

The BBC is often accused of right-wing bias by those on the left and of left-wing bias by those on the right. This is sometimes attributed to UK governments of either persuasion simply objecting to negative reporting of its policies. However, it is also common for opposition to the government to be critical of the BBC. In some cases, the BBC can be subject to criticism from both sides citing bias in favour of their opposition, as in its reporting of the war in Iraq.

===Bias against the US and Israel===
Although its charter requires it to be impartial, critics often accuse it of bias against [[United States]] and [[Israel]],<ref>http://www.bbcwatch.co.uk/index.html</ref> and because of these complaints of bias, an internal investigation was conducted on the BBC's coverage of the [[Arab-Israeli conflict]]. However, after the investigation was completed, BBC officials decided to withhold the 20,000-word report of the investigation, compiled in 2004 by senior editorial adviser Malcolm Balen. Steven Sugar, a Jewish critic of the BBC, attempted to get access to the report under the 2000 Freedom of Information Act, but was denied by the [[United Kingdom]]'s High Court. The information commissioner, Richard Thomas, backed the BBC's decision to block access to the report, but the information tribunal ruled on appeal in August, 2006, in favour of Steven Sugar. Still, the BBC argued at the High Court in London that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over the case, and the High Court ruled in favour of the BBC on April 28, 2007. The BBC maintains that the internal investigation found no deliberate or systematic bias. Conservative MP David Davies commented: "An organisation which is funded partly to scrutinize governments and other institutions in Britain appears to be using tax-payers' money to prevent its customers from finding out how it is operating. That is absolutely indefensible" and called the BBC's actions a "shameful hypocrisy". It has been estimated that the BBC has spent around £200,000 - £300,000 on the case so far.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2044130,00.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2067542,00.html</ref>

In 2003, Media Tenor, an independent, Bonn-based research group, conducted a study and found that the BBC’s Middle East coverage was 85 percent negative, 15 percent neutral, and 0 percent positive toward Israel.<ref>“Beeb Outdoes Itself”, Tzvi Fleischer, The Review, September 2003, p. 8.</ref>

During a 2006 internal "impartiality summit", BBC executives said they would happily broadcast an image of a [[Bible]] being thrown away, but would not do the same with a [[Koran]]. At the summit, the BBC's Washington correspondent Justin Webb also accused the executives of being anti-American, saying they treated the nation with scorn and derision and no moral weight.

On June 15, 2007, BBC drew criticism due to their apology over calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel.<ref>http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1181813036973&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</ref> The incident is one of many examples of repeated and systematic anti-Israeli bias from the BBC over a number of years.

===Liberal bias===
Details of the BBC's alleged bias were further tabled in an official report<ref>'''Revoir, Paul''', ''BBC comes under fire for institutional Left-wing bias'' [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462679&in_page_id=1770&ct=5 Daily Mail] June 18, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/17/nbbc217.xml BBC report finds bias within corporation], Gary Cleland,''Telegraph'', June 18, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13530 BBC Report: Network’s Bias Due to 'The Inherent Liberal Culture of its Staff’], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], June 17, 2007</ref> - in preparation since 2005 - which found that the BBC:
*has an "institutional Left-wing bias"
*has "a tendency to 'group think' with too many staff inhabiting a shared space and comfort zone."
*promotes anti-Christian sentiment
*promotes anti-American sentiment
*allows schedules to be "hijacked by special interest groups promoting trendy issues"
*over-represents homosexuals
*over-represents ethnic minorities
*fails to reflect the views of the [[British]] public on issues such as [[capital punishment]]
*fails to reflect the broader views of British people
*allows itself to be used by "sinister" campaign groups
*finds it difficult to understand there may be alternative views of the world

[[Antony Jay]], a former producer on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme, said the BBC News and Current Affairs are part of the "liberal media consensus". Jay also said his ex-colleagues "were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it." <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/14114 Former BBC Producer Explains Why Media Are Liberally Biased], Noel Sheppard, [[NewsBusters]], July 15, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1 Here is the news (as we want to report it)], [[Telegraph]], July 15, 2007</ref>Paul Dacre, the editor of the British newspaper, the [[Daily Mail]], in his January 2007 Hugh Cudlipp Memorial Lecture, said that "the BBC is, in every corpuscle of its corporate body, against the values of conservatism, with a small 'c', which just happen to be the values held by millions of Britons." He also accused the BBC of being hostile to the "traditional Right, Britain's past and British values, America, Ulster Unionism, Euro-scepticism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values."

A survey of BBC employees with profiles on the [[Facebook]] site showed that 11 times more of them class themselves as "[[liberal]]" than "[[conservative]]". <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/10/27/facebook-provides-fascinating-glimpse-society-media-demographics Facebook Provides Fascinating Glimpse Into Society, Media Demographics], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], October 27, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490047&in_page_id=1770&ito=1490 Facebook reveals the BBC as a liberal hotbed], Jane Merrick and Kirsty Walker, [[Daily Mail]], October 27, 2007</ref>

===Regional bias===
It is also argued that the BBC also systematically discriminates against [[Scots]] speakers. Although over 1.5 million<ref>[http://www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/schule25.pdf Language Policy in Scotland and Northern Ireland]</ref> people speak it there is no service in the language of those licence fee payers<ref>[http://www.scotslanguage.com/article/Trust_the_BBC%3F.html/translate/english Trust the BBC?]</ref><ref>[http://www.artscouncil-ni.org/departs/all/report/research/art_of_ulster_scots.rtf BBC NI less than generous]</ref>. Supporters of the BBC and some linguists argue that the large number of regional dialects of Scots makes it no more viable to programme for the language than it would be with English<ref>[http://www.eng.umu.se/city/Fredrik/city/scottish.htm Scottish Dialects and Accents]</ref>.

===Other===
BBC employees have changed [[Wikipedia]] entries, including a derogatory word in the entry for [[George W. Bush]] and changing the word “[[Terrorism|terrorists]]” to "[[freedom fighter]]s". <ref>[http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=26669&only&rss Wikipedia EditGate: BBC Edits], [[LittleGreenFootballs]], August 15, 2007</ref>

The BBC canceled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain's youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.
<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/11982 BBC Cancels TV Movie On Iraq War Hero As 'Too Positive,' Would 'Alienate' War Opponents], Lynn Davidson, [[NewsBusters]], April 11, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/08/wiraq308.xml Hero's tale is 'too positive' for the BBC], Chris Hastings, [[Telegraph]], July 4, 2007</ref>

The BBC funded a [[Paintball|paintballing]] trip for men later accused of [[Islamic terrorism]] and didn't pass on information about the 21/7 [[Terrorism|bombers]] to [[police]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/12/06/paintball-terrorists-bbc-paid-islamic-radical Paintball for Terrorists? BBC Paid for Islamic Radicals' Amusement], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], December 6, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=499795&in_page_id=1770 BBC 'funded paintballing trip for Islamic terrorists and didn't pass on information about 21/7 bombers'], Daniel Bates, [[Daily Mail]], December 5, 2007</ref>

[[Pauline Neville Jones]], who is a member of [[United Kingdom|Britain's]] [[British_politics#Conservatives|Conservative party]], a former [[Espionage|spy]] chief and former BBC governor, accused the BBC of "parroting" [[Al Qaeda]] [[propaganda]] to [[children]]. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2007/09/29/bbc-still-blaming-u-s-9-11 BBC Still Blaming U.S. for 9/11], Matthew Sheffield, [[NewsBusters]], September 29, 2007</ref> <ref>[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=484577&in_page_id=1770 BBC's Newsround fed youngsters Al Qaeda propaganda, claims ex-spy chief], James Chapman , [[Daily Mail]], September 29, 2007</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ BBC official site]
*[http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBCresistance - Campaigns against the television licence]
*[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article1942930.ece Bias at the Beeb - official], June 17, 2007, ''UK Times Online''.

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

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Atheism and Miracles

2008-03-13T20:47:12Z

JackThomson:

In regards to '''atheism and miracles''', modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not [[David Hume]] was an atheist.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#10</ref> With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation-providence.html</ref> Christian apologists [[William Lane Craig]], [[Norman Geisler]], [[C.S. Lewis]], [[JP Holding]], and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume's position regarding miracles. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation-providence.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html</ref><ref>http://www.ses.edu/journal/articles/2.1Hoffman.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth19.html</ref><ref>http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/pages/resources/publications/knowingDoing/2004/Miracles.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hume01.html</ref> <ref>http://www.comereason.org/phil_qstn/phi060.asp</ref>

Impossibly high standards are often set for miracles to be accepted including requirements such as multiple doctor's testimonies from before and after a medical miracle may have occurred along with x-rays and other confidential medical information being made public. When such evidence is produced it is simply stated to be inadequate or fraudulent.

==See Also==
*[[Atheism]]
== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Atheism]]

Liberal logic

2008-03-13T20:42:27Z

JackThomson:

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by a liberal that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible<ref>Anne Heche was frequently promoted by the media as the lesbian partner to Ellen DeGeneres, but later Anne Heche, who described herself as [[bisexual]], married a man and [[liberals]] avoided talking about the change.</ref>
# criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home. Liberals also often insist that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.</ref>
# no matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
# belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
# if [highly implausible assumption like "[[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis"], then would you support it (without any consideration of alternatives)?
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
# never admit shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often tell others they should be ashamed of themselves
# [[free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# insisting that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, but choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk
# requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, which actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while censorship for anything is [[Christian]]
# insisting that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex
# denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime
# insisting that increasing taxes must increase government revenue, when often people just work less and revenues then decline
# Even though the [[Supreme Court]] overrules precedents every year by 5-4 votes, [[Roe v. Wade]] cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# The pronoun "he" has been used to include men and women for centuries, but [[liberals]] find that illogical today
# [[Liberals]] assert that [[global warming]] will cause MORE snow

(add to list)

==See also==

*[[Liberal bias]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]

Liberal logic

2008-03-13T20:42:08Z

JackThomson:

'''Liberal logic''' is an argument by a liberal that is deceptively attractive to some, but is actually nonsensical. Here are some examples:

# often a [[liberal]] responds to a logical comment or question with an (illogical) expression of personal like or dislike, as in "but I like it!"
# claim that switching from heterosexual to [[homosexual]] is customary, but switching back is somehow impossible<ref>Anne Heche was frequently promoted by the media as the lesbian partner to Ellen DeGeneres, but later Anne Heche, who described herself as [[bisexual]], married a man and [[liberals]] avoided talking about the change.</ref>
# criticize [[Christians]] for literal interpretations of [[Genesis]], but then insist on even more literal interpretations when it suits the [[liberal]] ideology<ref>For example, [[liberals]] here insist that [[homeschooling]] can only mean being taught while in someone's own home. Liberals also often insist that the [[Bible]] literally prohibits judging anything.</ref>
# no matter what happens in the weather, [[global warming]] caused it
# belief that a [[correlation]] and/or [[causation]] (e.g., between [[atheism]] and [[suicide]]) can be disproved by a [[counterexample]] (e.g., one [[atheist]] who remained sane)
# [[Americans]] should "move on" past the misconduct of [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Ted Kennedy]], but should dig up as much old dirt as possible about [[John McCain]]
# if [highly implausible assumption like "[[embryonic stem cell]] research will find the cure for paralysis"], then would you support it (without any consideration of alternatives)?
# [[Barack Obama]] on [[Afghanistan]]: with fewer soldiers, we didn't have enough ammo and humvees!<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21text-demdebate.html?sq=transcript&st=nyt&scp=2&pagewanted=print]</ref>
# personal experience dictates personal views, rather than rising above bad and/or unusual experiences and basing one's views on [[logic]]
# never admit shame for [[liberal]] behavior, but often tell others they should be ashamed of themselves
# [[free speech]] for anything and everything ... except the [[conservative]] truth, and religion.
# [[Hollywood]] promotion of [[abortion]] is welcomed, but views of Hollywood actresses towards their own children are concealed
# insisting that an [[atheistic]] culture cannot harm anyone, but also insisting that classroom prayer can cause harm
# carrying an unborn child to birth reduces risk of breast cancer, but choosing [[abortion]] rather than childbirth somehow does not increase the relative risk
# requesting increased spending by [[government]] to reduce poverty, which actually poverty is increased by the dependency
# insisting on "tolerance" for anything that is anti-[[Christian]], while censorship for anything is [[Christian]]
# insisting that teaching [[abstinence]] does not reduce premarital sex
# denying that widespread ownership of guns, largely defensive weapons, can reduce crime
# insisting that increasing taxes must increase government revenue, when often people just work less and revenues then decline
# Even though the [[Supreme Court]] overrules precedents every year by 5-4 votes, [[Roe v. Wade]] cannot be overruled, or can only be overruled if it is a unanimous 9-0 vote (this argument tries to make irreversible law out of the dicta in a weak majority opinion in ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'', even though the very creation of that "secret opinion" was procured by [[liberal deceit]].)<ref>See Jeffrey Toobin's ''The Nine''.</ref>
# The pronoun "he" has been used to include men and women for centuries, but [[liberals]] find that illogical today
# [[Liberals]] assert that global warming will cause MORE snow

(add to list)

==See also==

*[[Liberal bias]]
*[[Liberal hysteria]]
*[[Liberal hate speech]]
*[[Liberal style]]
*[[Liberal denial]]
*[[Liberal obfuscation]]
*[[Liberal quotient]]

==References==
<references/>
[[category:politics]]