== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action{{citation needed}}.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

Talk:Censorship

2007-03-20T02:16:59Z

JamesLipton:

I would say the Libertarian community is one of the biggest opponents of censorship. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 06:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

We are. And also one of the biggest proponents of undermining intellectual dishonesty by whatever means available. --[[User:Sam|Sam]] 08:41, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Both sides of the political spectrum can commit censorship very easily. If you step too far left or too far right you will censor many things, both communist dictators and fascist overlords have censored in modern history. Conservatives want to censor to hide military information or blunders such as a press blackout or to hide something that they deem to be "obscene", whereas liberals would want to censor things that are deemed offensive to other people's culture or removes rights. Either way, censorship is terrible and clearly not the Framer's Intent. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Censorship

2007-03-20T02:16:44Z

JamesLipton:

Talk:Scientology

2007-03-20T01:54:28Z

JamesLipton: /* Religion or cult? */

I'm new here but know some of the scientology philosophy. The article used to read:
* Scientology is a controversial religion founded by science fiction writer Lafayette Ron Hubbard, based upon his self-help program of Dianetics. Its basic teaching is that all humans suffering comes from repressed traumatic memories, sometimes dating back to previous lifetimes, and that these memories of Xenu can be 'cleared' through a lengthy (and expensive) form of church therapy. Human souls are known as "Thetans". I removed the "all" of "all human suffering" because a person might knowingly wish to temporarily suffer, to some degree, in a situation toward a greater good. An example of that would be a minister living in primitive conditions, for example. So "all" human suffering could not be the result of past memories. The article also said something which implied all suffering came from a particular, long past memory which isn't at all what scientology proposes. I removed that word. Also, there are several ways a person can go about the Church's "therapy" and not all of them are expensive. But buying professional auditing can be expensive. Another method is co-auditing with a partner, it is significantly less expensive. A third method is to work within the Church, in which situation auditing is often given as a bonus. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 18:27, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biasing a solid article ==

User:Vossy has edited the article to produce that Scientology is not a religion, but a cult (as the page reads). There might be rooom to discuss the topic, but there is a good deal of scholarly opinion stating that the Church of Scientology is a religion. Could we have some discussion, please, rather than boldly presenting unattributed opinion ?
: Vossy also edited to produce that Dianetics is psychotherapy, i.e. ''based on his psychotherapy program, [[Dianetics]]''. May we keep the article simple and neutral, rather than biased ? If Dianetics is to be called ''psychotherapy'', may that be done in the aritle, [[Dianetics]] and that article doesn't exist at this moment. So can't we simply say, "Dianetics" without introducing the bias word "psychotherapy"? I'm quite sure the organization which promotes Dianetics does not present it as psychotherapy see: [http://www.dianetics.org dianetics.org].
: Vossy also created, "Dianetics was later expanded to appear more like a religion in order to gain tax benefits". This statement it is not attributed in the article. The Dianetics website does not support such a statement. In general, the statement is more a critical personal opinion than a statement of fact. I don't believe anyone could find any presentation BY Dianetics that ever said it was a religion, nor "religious - like".
: Finally, Vossy modified the article to produce, "Scientology has successfully converted a number of celebrities". But both Tom Cruise and John Travolta had been active in Scientology for some long while before making public statements about Scientology. Not to hammer a point home here, but "I am a Scientologist" is a self-declare, not a decree by the Church. It is not a statement of membership nor does it declare a faith, but says, "I find Scientology to be useful in my life". Can we discuss please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Religion or cult? ==

An old joke says "A cult is what a big religion calls a small one." But in this case, I think there are a few reasons to consider it a cult:
# Absolutly crazy beliefs.
# Accusations of brainwashing techniques, with court cases to back them up.
# Pseudoscientific 'Dianetics' theory and complete self-contained worldview serves to isolate members.
# A heavy element of a cult of personality - Ron Hubbard is revered.
# Founder was a professional fiction author... and his 'religion' seems much the science-fiction he wrote.
# Members are strongly pressured to convert others.
# A central controling organisation with exclusive authority.
# A long series of certifications and tests for members, each of which requires payment. Lots of payment.

All of these are cultlike aspects. Each of them alone would not be enough to call it a cult, but taken together... It sounds like a cult to me. And, really, if scientology had only a couple of hundred members, it would certinly be called a cult. Should mere scale allow it to turn somehow into a real religion?

Its a cult. Does anyone have a reason why it ''isn't'' a cult? If not, I will put the contriversial word in later :)

::If you want to add that you will need a source for it, what source are you planning on using? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 20:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::christianity is a cult too then, it fits all of those except #5 and #8--[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 21:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== History of the word ==

In 1952 Ron Hubbard gave a one hour, public lecture entitled, ''Scientology: Milestone One''. In it, he defined the word, he spelled out why he used that particular word, where he was going with the idea and defined the basis of using that word. A google map search yields 6000 + Scientology locations. None of them are connected with the use of the word prior to the Church of Scientology. So why mention the word history in a brief article? Any websearch gives millions of results, almost all are about the Church of Scientology. Any news search gives hundreds (or more) results, all of them about the Church of Scientology. So why a word history study in a brief article ?[[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 02:59, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Significant changes to the article==

Several of us have changed the article quiet a bit, the most controversial of these changes will involve the criticism section and the use of xenu.net, also perhaps what calling L. Ron Hubbard a science fiction writer, which he is, and maybe the use of the term religion. I also assume there are other issues that will need to be discussed so lets bring them here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:55, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

If you prefer, Tmtoulouse. At [[Conservapedia_Talk#Standards_of_Sources]] there has been discussion about what sources of information are appropriate to a conservapedia. The discussion is ongoing. I have proposed that Wikipedia's use of personal website as a source of information is inappropriate to a conservative wiki. A good deal of the difficulty at Wikipedia revolves around inappropriate use of reference. I hope our threshold of inclusion here is higher than Wikipedia's. The personal website referenced by recent edits is [http://xenu.net xenu.net / clambake.org]. That personal website says on its front page,
'''DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions.''' So, you see, those references are to a single individual's presentation of his personal opinion. His personal opinions are not peer reviewed, indeed, they might be no better than a notice on a lamp post. He might be a bright critic, he might be a criminal, but one thing, he is individual. I am saying, let us remove any reference, anywhere, to personal website. If the information is good information, it will appear at other sources of information. It cheapens a document to rely upon one man's personal opinion, particularly when that one man (as Andreas Heldal-Lund has), has spent time in jail.

On March 18th, [[User:Conservative]] (sysop), [[User:Tmtoulouse]] (I am here but I am not, background in psychology and neuroscience), and [[User:Bturpin]], made 18 edits to the article. Conservative and Tmtoulouse seem to have spontaneously found this article as a common target. Yet no talk about this article appears on any of the three user pages. The Bturpin account was recently created, that individual has engaged in only one discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:ColinR&diff=prev&oldid=32185]. How did this seeming unity of mind spontaneously come about ? The collaberation changed the article from
[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=46097] (a brief, 13 sentence, two reference links to offical sites), to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=46216], (a 16 sentence article with 7 referenced links and 2 exterior links). The exterior links (frightening links from years ago that tell how bad scientology is) are presented first so the reader knows what he is getting into and can escape if he wants to. The 7 referencing links point to 3 official sites for the religion (just in case anyone wanted to know anything about the religion). The 4 remaining references are to:
* A CBS story titled "The Sinking of Islam" (but misreprestened by the link element to substantiate, "unfavorable opinions of Scientology are widespread".
* A link proposing there might be some question that Scientology is:
** Christian in disguise (no Scientology site would ever suggest that, many Scientology links specifially address that and say no).
** A cult -- this issue is worth discussing because it is an opinion. But the reason for the link is to substantiate (again) "unfavorable opinions of Scientology are widespread" which that link does a very poor job of because it introduces the brand new tidbit of information "Scientology might be Christian". Why introduce that tidbit when Scientology itself says "NO, we're not Christian" and any scholar you are likely to find says "No, Scientology is not Christian"
* A link to a personal website, xenu.net to substantiate and reference that Scientology has been accused (by whom a reader might wonder).
* Another link to the same personal website, xenu.net, to substantiate and reference a myth about alien souls.

: I would like this article to present what Conservapedia proposes every article within it present. That is, a clear and easy to understand, brief introduction. Let us not indoctrinate our readers with our own personal points of view, nor hammer them with personal opinion from personal websites. Let us give our readers a foundation they can be certain of. In such a wise our readers can drop a subject, or not, confident they know something about it. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 19:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::The reason it was a common target is because there are very few edits really on this site, so when an edit occurs those of us that patrol the recent changes all collapse on it. No conspiracy or anything, just a function of the current conditions of this site. What information in the current article specifically do you want to see changed? Lets start there. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank you for the reply. Rather that say a particular information, could we instead address the issue of attribution? Because, if we address attribution the question of "what information" becomes moot, becomes nil and unimportant. The two attributions to xenu.net present information. Rather than say, "hey, what sense does that make", I stated that xenu.net is a personal website, a personal opinion by of one person. Rather than say "let's talk about this information", can we instead get good, substantial attributions ? The reason I say this is because if we do then we will have good information. And if we don't, we'll have personal opinion (one person on a planet of 6.5 billion). I believe what will happen is the "bad" information will be gone if personal websites are not used to support "bad" information. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 22:08, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Okay, no more xenu.net so all is copasetic? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 22:30, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: If information is attributed and referenced, and if those attributions do not point to personal websites, then why would I object? My intention is toward presenting good information in those areas that I know about. By "good", I mean information that a person can have confidence in. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:01, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

K. Spaink, too, [http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/fishman/ot3.html] is a personal website. The thing is, an individual person has no responsibility for good information. They might post, "the moon is made of green cheese". In that link Spaink explains her point of view and combines it with other opinion and what do we have? Good information, or very biased personal opinion ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 23:06, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Quotes directly from primary sources and other secondary sources. Seems perfectly reliable to me. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:16, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I removed the link to that personal website and the information it referenced to. One personal website link might be of slightly better quality than another personal website link, One posting on a light pole slightly better than a second posting on a light pole. But neither are much good. Why do you argue for conservapedia and present yourself in one way on Wikipedia, but add in "evil" here on your userpage, and take issue with personal websites here, Tmtoulouse? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 01:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::None of the issues related to me matter at all. I see nothing wrong with the source, as things stand its an acceptable source for conservapedia. Your welcome to ask for admin comment on this. Until then the sourced claim should stay. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 01:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

General points to be made:
*Scientology is a religion. It may be a cult, but it is certainly classified as a religion, in that they believe in the supernatural (Thetans, for example)
*It would be hypocritical not to use xenu.com as some sort of reference. We use CSM, and all sorts of Christian websites when referring to Christianity. It may not be appropriate in some places, but in others, it can reveal the Dogma, the "Kosher" view of Scientology, if you will. As we know, the basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth (though ideally it is truthful, though Scientology isn't the true religion according to most contributors).
*Whats great about Scientology is, it hasn't splintered off into different branches (like Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, Easern Orthodox, etc.). So if you find a source, chances are it represents the view of ''all'' the Scientologists.
Just some general stuff. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

I attempted to merge some of terryeo's edits into the article. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: We seem to have arrived at a reasonable first and second paragraphs. It has taken some effort :) It is my understanding, however, that Karin Splink's (I write therefore I am) site should not be linked to for the reason that her site presents stolen documents. I don't know all there is to know about the situation, but I have read the documents can not be posted anywhere BUT The Netherland where her site is hosted. In fact, that is the reason her Netherland site carries them. We might be getting ourselves into a legal situation (again, I don't know all there is to know about it) if we link to her site in that manner. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 03:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see how linking can be a copy right violation, all the information in the article is derived from information that is pretty much with in the public commons. Xenu is probably the most recognized element of the Church of Scientology's teachings. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 03:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'm not able to say what public opinion is. I can say that of the thousands of Scientologists and many staff members I have talked with, we have never thought of talking about that. And, I can say that I have never met that "teaching" in any Scientology Church or Mission I have entered. And I can safely say that it is not present in any of the published (to the public) works I own. (I searched) And I own about 95 % of the millions of words the Church has published. But, online, everyone screams bloody murder about it. While, in real life, no scientologist has heard about it. When did that myth supposedly happen? 75 years ago? 75 hundred thousand years ago? 75 '''MILLION''' years ago? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 04:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Its undeniably part of the church's doctrine, the church has said so in various lawsuits. It maybe not an important part anymore but it is certainly linked very closely in the public's mind with Scientology. Have you ever hung around one of Scientology's recruiting tents at a college university? About 1/5 of the people that show up for their "free stress test" will make a snickering remark about Xenu. Its often yelled out by passing pedestrians. I have seen this phenomenon in multiple locations. So I think it meets any criteria we can set for inclusion in the article. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::From what I recall during my days over to a-r-s Xenu was OT-III material, revealed only after the mark has (donated) spent thousands of dollars. It was in evidence during a trial of one guy named "Fischmann". Sometime between the occurrence of the trial and CoS's attorneys asking the documents be sealed, an enterprising person copied them and distributed them far and wide. Once the order to seal was set ALL these copies were illegal but somehow they managed to get onto the internet. The upshot is that though Xenu is widely known the actual documents are still copyrighted and not allowed to be seen in toto. But, as Groucho Marx pointed out "inside a dog, it's too dar to read. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 11:22, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Fox News ==

Father Jonathan of Fox News has written for Fox News about Scientology. [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253401,00.html here]. He then posted some of the comments he received [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254198,00.html here]. There are at least two points that can be observed:
* A clean, easily read article is widely read.
* Readers will remind you of controversy even if you don't include it. 
Let us err on the side of conservatism rather on the side of rumor-mongering. If our article is viewed with respect as Father Jonathan's seems to be, instead of the reactions to groupthink found at Wikipedia, we will have accomplished a great deal. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 12:17, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Good article ==

Gotta say the article as it currently stands is one of the better ones here. ''13:33, 19 March 2007 [[User:Palmd001]] (Good article)''

: Palmd001 refers, I think, to this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&oldid=48122] and I agree. I would prefer the article not be further modified without good reason. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Source for "applied spirituality"==

We seem to disagree about how to handle the "applied spirituality" classification. Can you provide a source for it? Maybe that will help use with the wording. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 13:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I am willing to do a good deal. I am willing to verify EVERY WORD of the edits I introduce. I am willing to write an article on Dianetics and more. But unless the article can stand for 5 minutes without bias creeping in, it would make no sense to do so. For example, "Scientology is an applied spiritual philosophy" becomes "Scientology is presented by adherents as an applied spiritual philosophy". An earlier statement, "Scientology, like Buddhism, is an applied spiritual philosophy" was similarly chopped up. Where does the problem lie? Am I to convince Tmtoulouse of the validity of every edit I make with direct quotations
for a dozen websites before the least word of my edit can stand for 5 minutes? If it is your intent to make me defensive about perfectly good, substantial, verifiable edits, you have certainly succeeded, [[User:Tmtoulouse]]. [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:30, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Show me a source for the phrase "applied spiritual philosophy" google comes up with nothing. [http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22applied+spiritual+philosophy%22+scientology&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 14:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That link shows 31 returns. The one I like best is [http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:zCzJ71Zbbh4J:en.allexperts.com/e/s/sc/scientology_beliefs_and_practices.htm+%22applied+spiritual+philosophy%22+scientology&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca]but of course everyone has their own tastes. Did you seek additional links then ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: At position #5, this link to an official Church site [http://www.scientology.org/html/opencms/cos/scientology/en_US/directory/religion-spirituality/philosophy/scientology/scientology-religion/index.html] presents Scientology as an "applied spiritual philosphy". [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::So then its just as I had written, it is the church/adherents that refer to it as such. Others refer to it as a body of teachings, others a cult, others far worse things. What wrong with saying that this particular definition is what the Church says? Makes sense to me. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: The official link I provided use the exact words, "applied spiritual philosophy", just I stated. "Applied religious philosophy" is more commonly seen and, in fact, an entire book has been written and published, extant for some years, revolving around the second definition. Who else WOULD say it? Scientology was created by Hubbard, Scientology was entrusted to the Church of Scientology by Hubbard, who would say what it is BUT the Church and their publications? No one else is expert in the area, where is the difficulty. Now let us say that as simply as possible, okay ? Why say, "the experts in neurology say that neurology is about ....." Why not say, "neurology is about ....."and (reference) ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::I would have no problem with "experts in neurology define neurology as...." if there were other different definitions. There are many other ways to define Scientology as has been done by many people. It needs to be qualified. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Edit war ==

* Tmtoulouse: Scientology is described as an applied religious philosophy by its adherents. [http://info.scientology.org/ What is Scientology]
* Terryeo: Scientology is an applied religious philosophy. [http://info.scientology.org/ What is Scientology] 
This is the edit war we are talking about? Tmtoulouse implies, "I refuse to allow any person to consider there is any authority, anywhere, about scientology". I state, "Scientology was created and entrusted to an organization, that organization is the authority about itself". 
Does that about sum it up ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:When there are multiple definitions for a term and some of those definitions are in conflict, one should source whose definition you are using. Seems pretty straight forward to me. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:53, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
: A web search for "scientology" yields millions of hits. A google maps for "scientology" yields thousands of locations. A book search for scientology yields many results. Do you wish the article to refer to one of the definitions that you have not yet presented on this page ? Do you wish to include a word study of the roots of the word? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:57, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::At this point I just want the definition we are using to be properly attributed. Thats all. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Okay, here is the link we have been using: [http://info.scientology.org/] and its first sentences begins, "Scientology is an applied religious philosophy". Which is what the article says, word for word. What would you like changed ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: Nothing, use the definition but attribute it in the text to the Church, since that is who owns and runs that site. Just as I have been advocating from the start. However, here is another option I might be okay with, use your wording, but add a sentence afterwards giving other definitions and sourcing them as well. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::: You are thinking that millions of websites, thousands of locations worth millions of dollars, books available everywhere, even public libraries, you're thinking that these things do not make public opinion? That because someone once used a similar word in 1901, is not translated, owns no property, and probably wouldn't be known by the public at all, except as a dispersive kind of "someone else used the word FIRST!" ? You're thinking that is so noteworthy that it must be included ? What's the point? The Church owns more than a billion dollars of property, has millions of adherents, Hubbard is the most widely translated author in history (Guiness Book of World Records), its on every continent and in almost every country. You're trying to say all of that is equally important to one guy's 1901 use of the word? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 19:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::Nope, I am talking about the many definition that have come after Hubbard and his books, it can be a religion, a cult, a murderous organization, a joke, ect. Your using the Church's definition so we source it to the Church. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 20:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Pastafarianism

2007-03-15T21:11:33Z

JamesLipton:

That picture will last about five minutes... --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Told ya... --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parody Religion? ==

What prevents this religion from being a real religion instead of a "parody religion"?--[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 17:11, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-03-15T21:11:21Z

JamesLipton: missing period

'''Pastafarianism''', also referred to as '''Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'''("FSM"), is a parody religion invented in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1282968000%26en=ee37c2cf9d5884e7%26ei=5090%26partner=rssuserland%26emc=rss But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There? - New York Times]</ref> Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]]{{fact}}, as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]], the original point was a critique of the Kansas Board of Education's actions involving [[Intelligent Design]] and the notion of "teaching the controversy" by constructing a clearly ridiculous theological system and then demanding that it get equal time.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref>. The [[Discovery Institute]] has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref> Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians". A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the religion.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref> The religion itself is anti-dogmatic, much unlike most western religions.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-03-15T21:08:51Z

JamesLipton: if you are going to title the article Pastafarianism, why not make it the subject of the article?

The '''Pastafarianism''', also referred to as '''Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'''("FSM"), is a parody religion invented in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1282968000%26en=ee37c2cf9d5884e7%26ei=5090%26partner=rssuserland%26emc=rss But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There? - New York Times]</ref> Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]]{{fact}}, as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]], the original point was a more limited critique of [[Intelligent Design]] and the notion of "teaching the controversy" by constructing a clearly ridiculous theological system and then demanding that it get equal time.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref>. The [[Discovery Institute]] has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref> Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians" A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the religion.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref> The religion itself is anti-dogmatic, much unlike most western religions.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Talk:Pastafarianism

2007-03-15T21:07:18Z

JamesLipton: Parody Religion?

Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-03-15T21:00:28Z

JamesLipton:

The '''Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster'''("FSM") is a parody religion invented in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons.html?ex=1282968000%26en=ee37c2cf9d5884e7%26ei=5090%26partner=rssuserland%26emc=rss But Is There Intelligent Spaghetti Out There? - New York Times]</ref> Although the Flying Spaghetti Monster is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]], as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]], the original point was a more limited critique of [[Intelligent Design]] and the notion of "teaching the controversy" by constructing a clearly ridiculous theological system and then demanding that it get equal time.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/27/AR2005082700019.html?nav=most_emailed Verbatim: Noodle This, Kansas - Washington Post]</ref>. The [[Discovery Institute]] has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."<ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref> Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians" A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the religion.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref> The religion itself is anti-dogmatic much unlike most western religions.

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />

Charles Sumner

2007-03-14T20:53:54Z

JamesLipton:

'''Charles Sumner''' (1811–1874) was an [[abolitionist]] U.S. Senator from Massachusetts who drove to eradicate slavery and who became a [[Radical Republican]] after the [[Civil War]]. A founder of the [[Republican Party]], Sumner served Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate for 23 years.

His strident stand against slavery and insulting language drove Congressman [[Preston Brooks]] of South Carolina to fly into a rage and violently beat Sumner with the head of his cane, as Sumner sat at his desk on the floor of the U.S. Senate<ref>http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/11BiographiesKeyIndividuals/CharlesSumner.htm</ref>. Sumner did not recover for three more years, when he retook his seat on the Senate<ref>http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USASsumner.htm</ref>.

Sumner once declared: <ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-03-11&view=View</ref>

:''Familiarity with that great story of redemption, when God raised up the slave-born Moses to deliver His chosen people from bondage, and with that sublimer story where our Saviour died a cruel death that all men, without distinction of race, might be saved, makes slavery impossible. ...''

:''There is no reason for renouncing Christianity, or for surrendering to the false religions; nor do I doubt that Christianity will yet prevail over the earth as the waters cover the sea.''

He helped create the shortlived Liberal Republican Party <ref>http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/11BiographiesKeyIndividuals/CharlesSumner.htm</ref><ref>http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Sumner-C.html</ref>

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Abortion

2007-03-14T20:27:57Z

JamesLipton: /* This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia */

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Abortion

2007-03-13T22:19:02Z

JamesLipton: /* Bible */