Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

James Brady

2010-06-15T12:03:40Z

JacobS: corrected typo(s)

'''James Brady''' was a political aid, best known as the White House Press Secretary under [[Ronald Reagan]]. He is also noted for serving as [[Phyllis Schlafly]]'s campaign manager during her run for Congress in Illinois in 1970. His injuries sustained in that 1981 assassination attempt against Reagan left him permanently disabled. As a result, he became a proponent of [[gun control]].

The [[Brady Bill]], a bill requiring private businesses selling firearms to submit all customers to a background check taking up to 5 days, was named after James Brady when it was passed in 1993.

James Brady

2010-06-15T12:03:08Z

JacobS: added section on Brady Bill

Brady Law

2010-06-15T11:56:44Z

JacobS: linked to article on James Brady

The '''Brady Bill''', or the '''Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act''', is a federal law that required a 5 day waiting period for a background check before any gun could be sold to an individual. The Act was signed into law by [[Bill Clinton]] on November 30, 1993 and went into effect on February 28, 1994. The act was named after [[James Brady]], who was shot during an assassination attempt on President [[Ronald Regan]].

==Provisions==

The Brady bill required all purchasers to wait while a background check was run before the transfer of the gun could take place, usually taking 5 days. If the background check cleared in less than 5 days, the transfer could take place at that time, if the check took longer, then the transfer could not proceed until the check had been passed. The waiting period could be bypassed entirely if the purchaser could show proof of clearing it previously, such as a current state issued concealed weapons permit. This act only applied to dealers licensed to sell firearms by the Treasury Department to private individuals. Private transfers between individuals, such as those done at a Gun Show, did not fall under this act as the federal government has no authority over intrastate commerce. In many jurisdictions though, actual background checks were not completed and the act simply became a 5 day waiting period.

==The Bill Today==

With the rapid growth of the Internet, the 5 day waiting period expired on November 30, 1998, and was replaced by a criminal background check being passed by the National Instant Check System (NCIS). This process often only takes minutes, but can take up to 3 days. If the 3 days pass without a denial being issued, then the gun sale is allowed to occur.

== See Also ==
*[[Gun control]]
*[[National Firearms Act]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/brady_act.txt Full Text of the Brady Handgun Control]
[[Category:United States Law]]

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2010-06-15T11:49:40Z

JacobS: /* NO */

{{debate}}

== NO ==

It is very simple - Jesus was born to rescue us from the [[original sin]]. If there is no [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will break down. So every true Christian should believe in creation account - literally. {{unsigned|Heffalump}}

Reply: So are you saying that all evolutionists deny original sin? Because Darwin didn't deny original sin. -Ethan

I think the nature of sin is one of the big different between creation and evolution.

Evolution doesn't really recognize sin, and see death and suffering as a part of nature and necessary process in evolution, to evolve to new species.

But bible says that death and suffering are because of sin, it is not what God wanted, and nothing nature and necessary about it.

I think Christians who still believe in evolution don't really realize the cruelty of evolution. 90% of a group have to die off in order for the rest of the 10& to "evolve".

'''Counter:'''
You assume that morally right=factually right, which simply isn't true. You can't look at the theory of evolution and claim to debunk it because it contradicts the theory it would replace.--JacobS(who will eventually get the hang of this internet thing) 07:48, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

God won't use death and suffering in His creation. And I think God is smart enough to make everything perfect in the beginning (just like what the bible says) instead of made a few amoebas and let them "evolve" over time.

For those of you who watched Dr. Kent Hovind's videos, I accept most of his views about this.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 16:54, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== YES ==

Given that God created Adam and Eve, how do you explain the existence of human races?

There are forces that act on all things. These forces also act on living things. The process of reacting to these forces to descendants is called ''evolution''.

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. There are 6 mechanisms of evolution and we may debate the effectiveness of each one, e.g., natural selection. However, evolution is a fact of reality and is unstoppable so long as life exists. Evolution is not at odds with Christianity and it is too bad many Christians do not understand that. --[[User:Peterporcaro|Peterporcaro]] 15:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

As humans are capable of believing two or more contradictory things, it entirely possible (and quite common) for someone who is truly a Christian to have a wrong view about parts of the Bible, including the parts that contradict [[evolution]]. So believing in evolution does not mean that you are not truly a Christian, even though you believe something quite anti-biblical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

This is very difficult to answer. I agree with Mr. Rayment - probably yes. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 08:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

As said above. --[[User:UaSsAu|UaSsAu]] 08:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't understand. How can someone believe in two contradictory things? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT) Can you give me an example of some thing you contradictory you believe in? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Most people who believe in two contradictory things don't realise that they believe in two contradictory things. They've never really thought through the implications of the things they believe to realise that there is a contradiction. That's not always true, though. Sometimes people do realise that they believe in two contradictory things, but choose to keep believing both of them. This I cannot understand, and I can't recall any examples. More common, however, would be those that have realised that two of the things they believe in are contradictory, but don't yet know how to solve that contradiction. Many people have become Christians but continued to believe in evolution. At first, they don't see the contradiction (believing, for example, that God used evolution to create). Later, many of them realise that there is a contradiction (their compromise doesn't actually work), but don't know how to resolve that. Fortunately, many of them ultimately resolve the contradiction by rejecting evolution, but there's many others who haven't done that last step, or haven't reached that last step ''yet''.
::: But the point is, salvation is not dependent on the believer accepting every last detail of what the Bible says. Those described above who eventually come to reject evolution haven't finally become Christians at the point that they reject evolution; they were already Christians before that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

That is a great explanation, Philip. That kind of opened my eyes. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:14, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:As a theistic evolutionist I think that the story of creation is more of an allegory. As for Adam and Even and Original Sin I haven't really decided whether or not they literally existed and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, or if that is an allegory as well. To be honest, I'm more of a passive evolutionist, fully realizing that I could very well be wrong while being glad that I'll be forgiven if I am. I'm just glad that the creationism v. evolution isn't really central to Christianity. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]''' 00:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::That's a defeatist attitude (don't take it personally!). Today you are a "passive evolutionists", tomorrow a "passive liberal". When will you be a "passive atheist"? Sorry for kidding, but think about it. If you don't take Creation literally, everything else in the Bible can be an "allegory". There are many allegories, metaphors, parables in the Bible, but the account of Creation is not. Nowhere it mentions that it shouldn't be taken literally. I'm sure Mr.Rayment will explain it better. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::: On the type of text of the creation account, see [[Creation week]]. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there is no original sin, then we don't need a Saviour to save us from it. Therefore we don't need Jesus. If there was no first Adam, there is no need of a last Adam. You're right; it's not central at all! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:34, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
As for this argument using the Adam and Eve story, this and the Theory of Evolution are not related. They are not alternatives of each other. The account of creation in the Bible is just that. It refers only to how things were created in the beginning. The Theory of Evolution concerns how life on earth has changed over time. If one is not satisfied with that argument, then perhaps this one: the Bible does not explain the means by which most forms of life were created by God. Is it not possible that God used evolution to further the variance of Earth's life forms? This idea is reminiscent of the ancient ways of explaining the universe: the apple falls from the tree because God wills it so. While this is still true, it has since been discovered that God created gravity, and this law of nature is most directly the cause of the apple's fall. It is most probable that God created evolution in the same way, to govern nature's life forms and the way that they change over time.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, why not? Ironheart777 11:59 (PST) 25 november

: I missed answering this earlier, so I will now, even though JArneal is no longer with us (on Conservapedia, that is).
: The evolutionary and biblical stories ''are'' alternatives, because they are incompatible. No, it is ''not'' possible that God used evolution, given that evolution requires billions of years, whilst the Bible ''[[creation week|clearly and unambiguously]]'' records that creation took six ordinary days, among other differences.
: The Bible ''does'' record how most forms of life were created: to reproduce "''after their kind''", i.e. not by becoming another kind, as evolution claims.
: Other differences are the order of creation (the Bible has birds before reptiles, for example), and that there was no death before mankind.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:36, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

I am a Roman Catholic. In 1996, Pope John Paul II accepted evolution of our physical bodies by means of natural selection, as long as our souls were created by God, we can accept both Genesis and evolution. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

:I don't think the Pope said that, and you don't provide a quote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

I hope I am not coming late to the party (although I clearly am looking at the edit dates :P) but I would like to share a belief of mine on evolution. I think that originally God created Adam and Eve and all that good stuff in Genesis, however evolution was also by God's design as well. Perhaps He wanted us to enjoy the majesty of him creating such a diverse history and how if life existed on Earth before Adam and Eve, that would be what it looks like. It would give us something to admire Him and His creation. However I believe that the concept of evolution was contorted by Satan in such a way that people began to use it as a substitute to Adam and Eve's story. Not sure if that made any sense, but, yeah.--[[User:CR|CR]] 00:20, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

:I appreciate your sharing this, but honestly it doesn't make any sense to me. What's your view of the [[Flood]]? Original sin? The reason for Christ's Passion? Everything unravels once a student falls for the [[liberal]] of [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

::I believe in all the things you mentioned, I'm not accepting evolution as the way the Earth or humans were made, just something added by God afterwards.--[[User:CR|CR]] 13:47, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2010-06-15T11:48:57Z

JacobS: /* NO */

{{debate}}

== NO ==

It is very simple - Jesus was born to rescue us from the [[original sin]]. If there is no [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will break down. So every true Christian should believe in creation account - literally. {{unsigned|Heffalump}}

Reply: So are you saying that all evolutionists deny original sin? Because Darwin didn't deny original sin. -Ethan

I think the nature of sin is one of the big different between creation and evolution.

Evolution doesn't really recognize sin, and see death and suffering as a part of nature and necessary process in evolution, to evolve to new species.

But bible says that death and suffering are because of sin, it is not what God wanted, and nothing nature and necessary about it.

I think Christians who still believe in evolution don't really realize the cruelty of evolution. 90% of a group have to die off in order for the rest of the 10& to "evolve".
#**'''Counter:'''
You assume that morally right=factually right, which simply isn't true. You can't look at the theory of evolution and claim to debunk it because it contradicts the theory it would replace.--JacobS(who will eventually get the hang of this internet thing) 07:48, 15 June 2010 (EDT)
God won't use death and suffering in His creation. And I think God is smart enough to make everything perfect in the beginning (just like what the bible says) instead of made a few amoebas and let them "evolve" over time.

For those of you who watched Dr. Kent Hovind's videos, I accept most of his views about this.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 16:54, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== YES ==

Given that God created Adam and Eve, how do you explain the existence of human races?

There are forces that act on all things. These forces also act on living things. The process of reacting to these forces to descendants is called ''evolution''.

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. There are 6 mechanisms of evolution and we may debate the effectiveness of each one, e.g., natural selection. However, evolution is a fact of reality and is unstoppable so long as life exists. Evolution is not at odds with Christianity and it is too bad many Christians do not understand that. --[[User:Peterporcaro|Peterporcaro]] 15:41, 11 November 2009 (EST)

As humans are capable of believing two or more contradictory things, it entirely possible (and quite common) for someone who is truly a Christian to have a wrong view about parts of the Bible, including the parts that contradict [[evolution]]. So believing in evolution does not mean that you are not truly a Christian, even though you believe something quite anti-biblical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

This is very difficult to answer. I agree with Mr. Rayment - probably yes. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 08:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

As said above. --[[User:UaSsAu|UaSsAu]] 08:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't understand. How can someone believe in two contradictory things? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT) Can you give me an example of some thing you contradictory you believe in? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Most people who believe in two contradictory things don't realise that they believe in two contradictory things. They've never really thought through the implications of the things they believe to realise that there is a contradiction. That's not always true, though. Sometimes people do realise that they believe in two contradictory things, but choose to keep believing both of them. This I cannot understand, and I can't recall any examples. More common, however, would be those that have realised that two of the things they believe in are contradictory, but don't yet know how to solve that contradiction. Many people have become Christians but continued to believe in evolution. At first, they don't see the contradiction (believing, for example, that God used evolution to create). Later, many of them realise that there is a contradiction (their compromise doesn't actually work), but don't know how to resolve that. Fortunately, many of them ultimately resolve the contradiction by rejecting evolution, but there's many others who haven't done that last step, or haven't reached that last step ''yet''.
::: But the point is, salvation is not dependent on the believer accepting every last detail of what the Bible says. Those described above who eventually come to reject evolution haven't finally become Christians at the point that they reject evolution; they were already Christians before that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

That is a great explanation, Philip. That kind of opened my eyes. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:14, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:As a theistic evolutionist I think that the story of creation is more of an allegory. As for Adam and Even and Original Sin I haven't really decided whether or not they literally existed and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, or if that is an allegory as well. To be honest, I'm more of a passive evolutionist, fully realizing that I could very well be wrong while being glad that I'll be forgiven if I am. I'm just glad that the creationism v. evolution isn't really central to Christianity. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]''' 00:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::That's a defeatist attitude (don't take it personally!). Today you are a "passive evolutionists", tomorrow a "passive liberal". When will you be a "passive atheist"? Sorry for kidding, but think about it. If you don't take Creation literally, everything else in the Bible can be an "allegory". There are many allegories, metaphors, parables in the Bible, but the account of Creation is not. Nowhere it mentions that it shouldn't be taken literally. I'm sure Mr.Rayment will explain it better. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::: On the type of text of the creation account, see [[Creation week]]. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there is no original sin, then we don't need a Saviour to save us from it. Therefore we don't need Jesus. If there was no first Adam, there is no need of a last Adam. You're right; it's not central at all! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:34, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
As for this argument using the Adam and Eve story, this and the Theory of Evolution are not related. They are not alternatives of each other. The account of creation in the Bible is just that. It refers only to how things were created in the beginning. The Theory of Evolution concerns how life on earth has changed over time. If one is not satisfied with that argument, then perhaps this one: the Bible does not explain the means by which most forms of life were created by God. Is it not possible that God used evolution to further the variance of Earth's life forms? This idea is reminiscent of the ancient ways of explaining the universe: the apple falls from the tree because God wills it so. While this is still true, it has since been discovered that God created gravity, and this law of nature is most directly the cause of the apple's fall. It is most probable that God created evolution in the same way, to govern nature's life forms and the way that they change over time.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, why not? Ironheart777 11:59 (PST) 25 november

: I missed answering this earlier, so I will now, even though JArneal is no longer with us (on Conservapedia, that is).
: The evolutionary and biblical stories ''are'' alternatives, because they are incompatible. No, it is ''not'' possible that God used evolution, given that evolution requires billions of years, whilst the Bible ''[[creation week|clearly and unambiguously]]'' records that creation took six ordinary days, among other differences.
: The Bible ''does'' record how most forms of life were created: to reproduce "''after their kind''", i.e. not by becoming another kind, as evolution claims.
: Other differences are the order of creation (the Bible has birds before reptiles, for example), and that there was no death before mankind.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:36, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

I am a Roman Catholic. In 1996, Pope John Paul II accepted evolution of our physical bodies by means of natural selection, as long as our souls were created by God, we can accept both Genesis and evolution. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

:I don't think the Pope said that, and you don't provide a quote.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

I hope I am not coming late to the party (although I clearly am looking at the edit dates :P) but I would like to share a belief of mine on evolution. I think that originally God created Adam and Eve and all that good stuff in Genesis, however evolution was also by God's design as well. Perhaps He wanted us to enjoy the majesty of him creating such a diverse history and how if life existed on Earth before Adam and Eve, that would be what it looks like. It would give us something to admire Him and His creation. However I believe that the concept of evolution was contorted by Satan in such a way that people began to use it as a substitute to Adam and Eve's story. Not sure if that made any sense, but, yeah.--[[User:CR|CR]] 00:20, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

:I appreciate your sharing this, but honestly it doesn't make any sense to me. What's your view of the [[Flood]]? Original sin? The reason for Christ's Passion? Everything unravels once a student falls for the [[liberal]] of [[evolution]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

::I believe in all the things you mentioned, I'm not accepting evolution as the way the Earth or humans were made, just something added by God afterwards.--[[User:CR|CR]] 13:47, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

Literacy

2010-06-15T11:32:34Z

JacobS: added "References" section

'''Literacy''' is the ability to [[read]], or [[write]] at adequate levels, by means of a language. Literacy is generally considered to be crucial for many forms of employment and higher education. It is also serves to benefit democracies. Of this, [[John Adams]] said "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people."<ref> [http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_adams.html]</ref>

The [[National Center for Education Statistics]] has three separate categories of literacy: prose, document, and quantitative. Prose literacy is the ability to read and comprehend written material, document literacy is the ability to understand maps or schedules, and quantitative literacy is the ability to do basic mathematic functions. According to their 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (pr NAAL) report, 30 million adult Americans do not have basic prose literacy skills. Someone who has basic literacy can "perform simple and everyday literacy activities." By this account, 14% of the adult population was "functionally illiterate," which means they may or may not be able to perform the simplest "literacy" skills (such as recognizing their own name, rather than ''reading'' it). <ref> [http://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp] </ref>

==Quotes==
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them." - Mark Twain (1835-1910) http://andylangton.co.uk/stuff/cool-quotes]

[[Category:Linguistics]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?

2010-06-15T00:33:22Z

JacobS: /* YES */

'''Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?'''

==YES==

There are 47 million Americans without health insurance.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php</ref>

The result of the above mentioned people being without cover is a death rate estimated to be around 45,000/year<ref>http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage</ref>

Current schemes result in high costs for Americans, and are responsible for around 60% of all declarations of bankruptcy.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf</ref>

For the above reasons, the humanitarian/utilitarian decision is evidently to support public funded healthcare in the United States of America. Furthermore, from an ecconomically motivated point of view it is also beneficial, as the cost of healthcare in other nations currently implementing a taxpayer funded system is demonstrably lower than that in the United States<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html</ref>, where individuals have to find their own insurance.

It is also worth noting that there have been many cases of insurance companies either 1) denying cover for those with pre-existing conditions (thus leaving them incapable of surviving without government funding, and creating a burden for the taxpayer much higher than it would be in a public system) or 2) exploiting legal loopholes to deny cover paid for for arbitrary reasons.

The opposition argues that as "Millions of the people without insurance here aren't Americans; they are illegal aliens.". The implication made by the opponents is that because the uninsured are not american citizens they are somehow inferior. We would like to highlight for the opposition that holding Citizenship of the United States does not place one at a higher status or priority in regard to medical care, and that to decline care for aliens merely because they are so is contradictory to the "golden rule" honoured by -among many other doctrines- the Holy Bible.

==References==
{{reflist}}

==NO==

It's unconstitutional to make people buy something. Neither doctors nor hospitals here turn patients away if they lack insurance, and many will treat first, bill later (even if they know you can't pay them).

Millions of the people without insurance here aren't Americans; they are illegal aliens. And around 10 million Americans are only without insurance because they are between jobs; it takes such a person typically 4 months to get a new job (and with it, [[health insurance]]).

Amendment 14 of the US constitution "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Debate:Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?

2010-06-15T00:19:52Z

JacobS: /* YES */

'''Should Americans be required to buy health insurance?'''

==YES==

There are 47 million Americans without health insurance.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/80897.php</ref>

The result of the above mentioned people being without cover is a death rate estimated to be around 45,000/year<ref>http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage</ref>

Current schemes result in high costs for Americans, and are responsible for around 60% of all declarations of bankruptcy.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/american_journal_of_medicine_09.pdf</ref>

For the above reasons, the humanitarian/utilitarian decision is evidently to support public funded healthcare in the United States of America. Furthermore, from an ecconomically motivated point of view it is also beneficial, as the cost of healthcare in other nations currently implementing a taxpayer funded system is demonstrably lower than that in the United States<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html</ref>, where individuals have to find their own insurance.

It is also worth noting that there have been many cases of insurance companies either 1) denying cover for those with pre-existing conditions (thus leaving them incapable of surviving without government funding, and creating a burden for the taxpayer much higher than it would be in a public system) or 2) exploiting legal loopholes to deny cover paid for for arbitrary reasons.

==References==
{{reflist}}

==NO==

It's unconstitutional to make people buy something. Neither doctors nor hospitals here turn patients away if they lack insurance, and many will treat first, bill later (even if they know you can't pay them).

Millions of the people without insurance here aren't Americans; they are illegal aliens. And around 10 million Americans are only without insurance because they are between jobs; it takes such a person typically 4 months to get a new job (and with it, [[health insurance]]).

Amendment 14 of the US constitution "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Gregg v. Georgia

2010-06-14T23:50:57Z

JacobS: corrected typo

In '''''Gregg v. Georgia''''', 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] decided whether the [[death penalty]] is constitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

In 1976 Troy Leon Gregg was found guilty by the jury of a local court for armed robbery and murder and given the death sentence. The Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the punishment except on the grounds that it was a penalty for the robbery. Gregg challenged his unmoved death sentence saying that it was against the [[Eighth Amendment]], that no cruel or unusual punishments would be inflicted for criminal chastisements, and the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] that no State would deprive a citizen of life, liberty of property without due process of law.

Gregg appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] who ruled in a 7-2 decision, with only Justices [[William Brennan]] and [[Thurgood Marshall]] dissenting, that the death sentence did not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment as long as it was used on the proper grounds. Georgia's death penalty statute assures that it is given judiciously only after deep investigation into the case to make sure that its severity merits such strong punishment.

This case is one of the five "Death Penalty Cases", the other four being
* ''[[Proffitt v. Florida]]''
* ''[[Roberts v. Louisiana]]''
* ''[[Woodson v. North Carolina]]''
* ''[[Jurek v. Texas]]''

== Sources ==
*Author unknown, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/gregg.html
*Author unknown, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_74_6257/
*Author unknown, http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/greggvgeorgia/
*Paul Soifer, "Important U.S. Supreme Court Cases", U.S. Government and Politics, pg 343
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:Eighth Amendment]]

Greek Civil War

2010-06-14T23:35:14Z

JacobS: Added a small amount of information re: human cost, cited

The '''Greek Civil War''' took place between 1944 and 1949 after the [[Communist]]-led resistance movement ELAS (which had since 1942 been fighting anti-[[Communist]] [[Greek]] partisans as well as the occupying [[German]] forces) attacked forces loyal to the Greek Government-in-Exile, which had returned to [[Athens]] after the German withdrawal. The communist rising was defeated with the aid of [[British]] troops.

Total losses incurred by the resistance movement were around 10,000, with the exiled government's forces lost about 55,000 men.<ref>http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/golf/greece1944.htm</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Greece]]

Talk:Drug resistance

2010-06-14T23:30:26Z

JacobS: /* The creation-evolution debate */

==What other alternate explanations?==
What are the other alternate explanations as indicated by: "Others have hypothesized alternative explanations for the arise and spread of drug-resistance in bacteria."? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 17:52, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==The creation-evolution debate==

Cut from end:

:Mainstream textbooks treat this as established science,<ref>''Zinsser Microbiology,'' 1968, pp. 163-167, Appleton-Century-Crofts, Library of Congress 68-8386</ref> and supporters of the Darwinian theory of evolution often cite it as an example of rapid evolution.<ref name=fda/> Creationists dispute this interpretation. Some acknowledge the general correctness of the traditional explanation but argue that it is not analogous to speciation in higher organisms and has no relevance to the evolution of macroorganisms.

Let's not have mini-debates all over the project. If we are to present the [[Origins debate]] at all, let's do it in an organized way. Let's lay out the case for each side. I can think of at least two (and maybe four) different ideas about the origin of species. Let's be intellectually honest, okay? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree, and also it would be useful if conservapedians could get their act together. citing the FDA stating ""The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution" while also holding several articles attempting to provide evidence against evolution is misleading, regardless of the website's stance. --JacobS(who will eventually get the hang of this internet thing) 19:30, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

Voted Most Influential Person in American History

2010-06-14T23:24:51Z

JacobS: added "uncited" template

{{uncited}}

On December 18, 2008, the world's largest [[Conservapedia:Index|American History]] course for teenagers (66 students) voted as the most influential person in American History to be:

*[[Thomas Edison]]

== Runners-Up ==

The runner-up was:

*[[Ronald Reagan]]

The second runner-up was:

*[[George Washington]]

The third runner-up was:

*[[Benjamin Franklin]]

[[Category:American History]]

Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley

2010-06-14T23:14:37Z

JacobS: Added "References" section to article

In '''''Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley''''', 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that "government may not grant the use of a forum to people whose views it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views."<ref>http://law.jrank.org/pages/12640/Police-Department-Chicago-v-Mosley.html</ref>

This has become an important precedent in ending discrimination against religious groups in public facilities such as libraries and after hours in schools.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

Police Dept. of City of Chicago v. Mosley

2010-06-14T23:12:03Z

JacobS: Added citation