Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Rules of engagement

2012-05-13T02:04:07Z

JeromeKJ: Not just US forces

'''Rules of engagement''' are directives issued by competent [[military]] authority that delineate the circumstances and limitations under which [[military]] forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered.
[[Category:Military]]

George W. Bush

2012-05-11T00:24:15Z

JeromeKJ: Undo revision 980742 by Bigmoney (talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=George W. Bush
|image=George_w_bush.jpeg
|party=Republican
|spouse=Laura Bush
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=43rd
|terms=January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
|vp=[[Dick Cheney]]
|preceded=[[Bill Clinton]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Barack Obama]]
}}
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=46th
|state=Texas
|terms=January 17, 1995 – December 21, 2000
|preceded=[[Ann Richards]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Rick Perry]]
}}
}}
'''George Walker Bush''' (born New Haven, [[Connecticut]] 1946) was the Governor of [[Texas]] (1995-2000) and served as the 43rd [[President of the United States of America]] from 2001 to 2009. Campaigning on a theme of "compassionate conservatism" and promising "to restore honor and dignity" to the office of President after the Clinton years,<ref>[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9507E3DC153FF931A2575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE TEXAS GOVERNOR; Bush Calls on Gore to Denounce Clinton Affair,] By Frank Bruni, The New York Times'', August 12, 2000. </ref> he won the office by a narrow margin in the decisive State of [[Florida]] in the [[United States presidential election, 2000|2000 Presidential election]]. Legal challenges to the certified vote count went all the way to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] when liberal Democratic contender [[Al Gore]] contested the outcome for weeks until the Supreme Court case [[Bush v. Gore]].

In the [[United States presidential election, 2004|2004 Presidential election]] Bush won re-election, helped in part by a 300,000 vote victory (5%) in the State of Florida, where the outcome had been so close in 2000.<ref>[http://election.dos.state.fl.us/elections/resultsarchive/SummaryRpt.asp?ElectionDate=11/2/2004&Race=PRE&DATAMODE= Florida Election Records], ''[[Florida Dept. of State]]''</ref> [[Leftist]] Democratic candidate [[John Kerry]] conceded defeat the day after the election.

Bush's presidency was defined by [[foreign policy]] because of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]], which eventually resulted in the liberation of the countries of [[Iraq]] and [[Afghanistan]]. Bush named two conservatives to the Supreme Court. He reformed K12 education with a major new program, [[No Child Left Behind]], and pushed a series of major tax cuts through Congress. Conservatives cheered. All this happened in his first term, aiding his easy reelection. His performance in dealing with [[Hurricane Katrina]] in 2005 were widely ridiculed, though some Republicans argued that local Democrats did an even worse job.

As the [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] smashed into the banking system and the nation plunged into the [[Recession of 2008]], Bush responded by proposing a massive aid program of $700 billion to banks, and loan guarantees amounting to the trillions of dollars. Conservatives were dismayed as he proposed a traditional [[Keynesian]] [[stimulus]] which Democrats lauded. Above all, he made one of the most dramatic federal interventions in American history by his aid to the financial system. Bruce Bartlett, a Republican economist, says, "Bush clearly is not a Reaganite or "small 'c' conservative."

Conservatives and [[libertarian]]s have criticized Bush for greatly increased domestic spending, creating a new entitlement program for prescription drugs, failing to veto a single bill, and expanding both the size and scope of government. The man made extremely difficult decisions under extraordinary circumstances. Unlike any president before him, he was subjected to an all out attack by the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Bush's last year in office was a combination of Democrat [[Alinsky]] tactics and abandonment by his own Republican party. Lobbyists and Congress contributed greatly to the collapsing financial markets. Mistakes, questionable interests, Federal Reserve lack of transparency, Liberal Media, Unions, Homeland Security and you understand why the Bush team was to falter, they were in over their heads. Bush is a man with convictions that didn't cower from protecting America and putting America first. <ref>See www.honorfreedom.com</ref> George would engineer two government rebate checks, giving back to the people. Average unemployment over eight-years of the [[Bush Administration]] was 5.3%. <ref>[http://scottstanzel.com/2010/06/04/unemployment-rate-during-president-bush/ Scottstanzel.com, Unemployment During President George W. Bush’s Two Terms]</ref> and he can be credited for having the most [[pro-life]] policies of any president.

==Early Life==
[[Image:Bushfamily.JPG|left|thumb|275px|George W. Bush and his family in 1981]] George W. Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, [[Connecticut]], and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas. <ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/biography.html</ref> He earned a BA in history from [[Yale University]] and attended [[Harvard]] Business School as well. He later served in the [[Air National Guard|Texas Air National Guard]] as an F-102 Delta Dagger pilot. Bush grew up around politics, as his father [[George H. W. Bush]] had been a member of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]], American Ambassador to the [[United Nations]], Director of the [[Central Intelligence Agency]](CIA) and [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]] of the United States under President [[Ronald Reagan]]. In 1988, George W. Bush worked for his father's successful presidential campaign. Afterward Bush purchased the Texas Rangers [[baseball]] franchise.

==Governor of Texas==
Bush declared his candidacy for Governor of Texas in 1994. He defeated incumbent [[Democrat]] Governor [[Ann Richards]] 53.5 percent to 45.9 percent. Bush advocated and signed the two largest tax cuts to date in Texas history, totaling over $3 billion. <ref>http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40078/tsl-40078.html</ref> He supported and signed legislation emphasizing local control of [[school]]s, higher standards, and a revised curriculum. Bush was easily reelected Governor in 1998.

==2000 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 2000]]''

The Republican nominee for the 2000 Presidential nomination came down to Texas Governor George W. Bush and [[Arizona]] Senator [[John McCain]], a maverick Republican and ex-POW. Most social conservatives endorsed Bush. Despite early primary wins in [[New Hampshire]] and [[Michigan]] for McCain, Bush eventually won after sweeping 9 out of the 13 states on Super Tuesday. McCain withdrew in March after a bitter primary fight. Bush then chose former U.S. Defense Secretary [[Richard Cheney]] as his running mate. Vice President [[Al Gore]] was the Democratic nominee. Consumer Advocate [[Ralph Nader]], a strong supporter of [[environment]]al protection and critic of large corporations entered the race in the [[United States Green Party|green party]].

In a historically close race, Gore edged out Bush in the popular vote 48.4 percent to 47.9 percent. However, Bush won the majority of electoral votes, 271 to 266, because of Bush's victory in Florida, winning its 25 electoral votes that both candidates desperately needed. The race in Florida was so close that state law required a recount of the ballots. There were, however, thousands of thrown out ballots that were discredited because the counting machines could not discern them. After the machine recounts still showed Bush ahead, Gore asked for a hand recount of ballots in counties that favored Democrats. On November 26th, Florida officials certified that Bush won the state of Florida by 537 votes. Gore conceded December 13th.

==2004 Reelection Campaign==
''Main Article: [[United States presidential election, 2004]]''

In President Bush's reelection campaign in 2004, national security, the invasion of Iraq and social issues dominated the campaign. The Democrat nominee was [[Massachusetts]] Senator [[John Kerry]]. Bush won the popular vote, 51% to 48%. With 120 million Americans voting (15 million more then in 2000) Bush received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history. Among the swing states, Kerry took [[Pennsylvania]], [[New Hampshire]], [[Michigan]], [[Minnesota]], [[Wisconsin]] and [[Oregon]], while Bush took [[Ohio]], [[Florida]], [[Missouri]], [[Iowa]], [[Colorado]], [[New Mexico]], and [[Nevada]]. <ref>http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html</ref>

Republicans also picked up seats in both chambers of [[Congress]].

==Presidency (2001-2009)==

In foreign and security areas, his terms included the 9-11 terrorist attack, the passage of the PATRIOT Act, the invasion of Afghanistan (2001-present) and Iraq (2003-present), the expansion of NATO to the Russian border, financial aid to fight disease (especially AIDS) in Africa, and improved relations with India. The Iraq was was the focus of intense partisan debate.

The 2002 midterm election saw a GOP gain of seats in the House of Representatives and governorships, However the 2006 elections showed sharp GOP losses across the board, and loss of control of the House for the first time since its capture in 1994. He played a minor role in the 2008 election, which the GOP lost.

In domestic legislation he partnered with Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]] to pass the No Child Left Behind education act, and tried--but failed--to pass immigration reform. Early on he secured large-scale tax cuts, which helped the economic recovery in 2002. The boom (and later collapse) in real estate boosted the economy then pulled it down. Liberals criticized his handling of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina relief, and the dismissals of U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. His proposed "Vision for Space Exploration" went nowhere, and he failed to make headway in Social Security reform. Conservatives hailed his appointments of conservatives to the Supreme Court and Federal Reserve chairmanship.

===Administration and Cabinet===

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Office
! Name
! Term
|-
| [[President]]
| George W. Bush
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]]
| [[Richard Cheney]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of State]]
| [[Colin Powell]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Condoleezza Rice]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Treasury]]
| [[Paul O'Neill]]
| 2001-2002
|-
|
| [[John W. Snow]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Henry Paulson]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Secretary of Defense]]
| [[Donald Rumsfeld]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Robert Gates]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[Attorney General]]
| [[John Ashcroft]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Alberto Gonzales]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Michael Mukasey]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of the Interior
| [[Gale Norton]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Dirk Kempthorne]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Agriculture
| [[Ann Veneman]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Mike Johanns]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Ed Schafer]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Commerce
| [[Donald Evans]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Carlos Gutierrez]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Labor
| [[Elaine Chao]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| Secretary of Health and Human Services
| [[Tommy Thompson]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Education
| [[Rod Paige]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Margaret Spellings]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
| [[Mel Martinez]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Alphonso Jackson]]
| 2003-2008
|-
|
| [[Steve Preston]]
| 2008-2009
|-
| Secretary of Transportation
| [[Norman Mineta]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Mary Peters]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Secretary of Energy
| [[Spencer Abraham]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Samuel Bodman]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Secretary of Veterans Affairs
| [[Anthony Principi]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Jim Nicholson]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[James Peake]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Secretary of Homeland Security
| [[Tom Ridge]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Michael Chertoff]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Chief of Staff
| [[Andrew Card]]
| 2001-2006
|-
|
| [[Joshua Bolten]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
| [[Christine Todd Whitman]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Michael Leavitt]]
| 2003-2005
|-
|
| [[Stephen Johnson]]
| 2005-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of Management and Budget
| [[Mitch Daniels]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| Joshua Bolten
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Rob Portman]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Jim Nussle]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
| [[John Walters]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| United States Trade Representative
| [[Robert Zoellick]]
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Rob Portman
| 2005-2006
|-
|
| Susan Schwab
| 2006-2009
|-
| [[CIA]] Director
| [[George Tenet]]
| 2001-2004
|-
|
| [[John E. McLaughlin]]
| 2004
|-
|
| [[Porter J. Goss]]
| 2004-2006
|-
|
| [[Michael Hayden]]
| 2006-2009
|-
| FBI Director
| [[Louis Freeh]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Thomas J. Pickard]]
| 2001
|-
|
| [[Robert S. Mueller]]
| 2001-2009
|-
| National Security Advisor
| Condoleezza Rice
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| Stephen Hadley
| 2005-2009
|-
| White House Counsel
| Alberto R. Gonzales
| 2001-2005
|-
|
| [[Harriet Miers]]
| 2005-2007
|-
|
| [[Fred Fielding]]
| 2007-2009
|-
| White House Press Secretary
| [[Ari Fleischer]]
| 2001-2003
|-
|
| [[Scott McClellan]]
| 2003-2006
|-
|
| [[Tony Snow]]
| 2006-2007
|-
|
| [[Dana Perino]]
| 2007-2009
|-
|}

===Response to the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks===
The September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks resulted in George W. Bush becoming a self-described war time President. On that morning President Bush had traveled to Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, [[Florida]] to promote his [[education]]al agenda, when 19 Islamic terrorists connected with [[Al-Qaeda]] hijacked four commercial airplanes. Two of them crashed into the [[World Trade Center]] in [[New York City]], the third in [[The Pentagon]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] and the fourth in Somerset County, [[Pennsylvania]], after passengers of the flight successfully stopped the hijackers from hitting Washington D.C., possibly the [[White House]] or [[Capital]]. As a resulted over 3,000 Americans were killed, and over 6,000 injured, the largest terrorist attack in American history. After [[White House]] Chief of Staff [[Andrew Card]] had whispered in the President's ear that the United States was under attack, President Bush addressed the public in the Booker school's media center, saying a brief four paragraph statement that "Terrorism against our nation will not stand. This will not stand." Which was a formation that President George H. W. Bush used in August 1990 after [[Iraq]] invaded [[Kuwait]]. President Bush would later say that "This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. . . . I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

[[Image:20010912-4-1.jpg|left|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Vice President [[Dick Cheney]] and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, talk with the press about the previous day's terrorist attacks during a cabinet meeting Sept. 12, 2001. White House photo by Tina Hager.]] Although the attacks may have been an attempt from Al-Qaeda to divide the United States, they were unsuccessful. Across the nation Americans had donated blood and raised money for reconstruction in New York City. Within weeks Americans had raised over one billion dollars. <ref>The American Vision from National Geographic, pg. 1033 </ref> On September 14th President Bush declared a national emergency. [[CIA]] Director [[George Tenent]] and the FBI identified the attacks from Al-Qaeda and [[Osama Bin Laden]] in [[Afghanistan]]. As [[Secretary of State]] [[Colin Powell]] begin to build an international coalition with over 90 countries to support the United States global [[War on Terrorism]], [[Secretary of Defense]] [[Donald Rumsfeld]] began to redeploy troops and aircraft's to the [[Middle East]]. On September 24th, President Bush issued an executive order freezing all funding to financial assets to individuals and groups suspected of terrorism, and over 80 other nations soon followed. Bush then established the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate federal agencies working to prevent terrorism. The President appointed [[Pennsylvania]] [[Governor]] [[Tom Ridge]] to the office. In October President Bush signed into law the U.S. [[Patriot Act]], which allowed authorities to obtain a signal nationwide search warrant that could be used anywhere on suspected terrorists. It also made it easier to wiretap terrorists and track their [[email]]. The mastermind of the 9/11 attacks—[[Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]] has been captured.

On October 5th, a new [[anthrax]] scare from terrorists began. Anthrax—a deadly bacteria—had been sent in the mail to news organizations in New York City and Washington, D.C. and [[United States Senate|Senate]] Majority Leader [[Tom Daschle]]'s office. The FBI investigated the anthrax attacks, although no suspects were identified.

===War in Afghanistan===
*''Main Article: [[Afghanistan War]]
Afghanistan housed and protected al-Qaeda as it planned the 9-11 attacks. It then refused to turn over al-Qaeda leaders. With UN and NATO approval, Bush went to war to overthrow the Taliban. On October 7th, 2001, he ordered bombing of al-Qaeda's camps and the [[Taliban]]'s military forces in Afghanistan. "We will not waver, we will not tire, we will not falter, we will not fail, freedom will prevail", President Bush explained. The attack quickly shattered the [[Taliban]]'s defenses, and by early December the Taliban regime had collapsed. The United States, its allies and the UN then helped Afghanistan create a new government under [[Hamid Karzai]]. By March 2002, the Taliban and al-Qaeda were beginning to regroup again in the mountain's of the [[Pakistan]] border. President Bush responded by launching Operation Anaconda, where Al-Qaeda troops were defeated. Al-Qaeda was largely destroyed, but the Taliban rebuilt using secure sanctuaries in Pakistan from which it launched terror attacks inside Afghanistan (and inside Pakistan as well)..<ref> Fred Barnes, ''Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2006); Seth Jones, ''In the Graveyard of Empires: America's War in Afghanistan'' (2009)</ref>

As a candidate in 2008 Obama criticized Bush for neglecting the Afghanistan, and tripled the number of American troops from 31,000 when Bush left office to over 100,000 in early 2010

===2002 Mid-Term Elections===

Democrats wanted the focus of the 2002 mid term elections to be on the [[economy]], which was growing slowly after the September 11th terrorist attacks. However, because Congress voted to authorized military force in Iraq in mid-October, national security was the top issue. Republicans increased their majority in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and took back control of the [[United States Senate]].

===2002-2003 build up of the War in Iraq===
In his infamous January 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush declared an "Axis of Evil" made up of [[Iraq]], [[Iran]], and [[North Korea]], countries that posed a grave threat to the world and were suspected of supporting terrorism. Considering it a more dangerous and urgent threat then North Korea, President Bush began putting pressure on Iraq throughout 2002 for a regime [[change]]. Iraq's dictator [[Saddam Hussein]] had used chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds, an ethnic minority in Iraq. Considering that Iraq may had been building Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) and was a threat to the United States and its allies, On September 12, 2002 President Bush tried to gain U.N. support for a U.S. led invasion of Iraq and asked for a resolution that Iraq gave up it's Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution that demanded Saddam Hussein declare all of it's WMD's, stop supporting terrorism and oppressing his people, Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq. The United States, [[Great Britain]] and about 30 other countries began to prepare for war.

===Aftermath of the Invasion===
[[Image:20031127_dsc2048-515h.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with troops and serves Thanksgiving Dinner at the Bob Hope Dining Facility, Baghdad International Airport, Iraq,, Thursday, November 27, 2003. White House photo by Tina Hager.]] On March 23rd, 2003, U.S. led coalition forces began an attack on Iraq. Most of the Iraqi army dissolved and coalition forces quickly took control of the country. However, sectarian violence worsened through [[bomb]]ings and sniper attacks. On Thanksgiving 2003 President Bush and U.S. National Security Adviser [[Condoleezza Rice]] visited troops in Iraq to boost moral. Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003 while little evidence had shown that he had obtained Weapons of Mass Destruction.

On January 30, 2005 Iraq had it's first general election since the liberation. They voted for a 275-member Iraqi National Assembly which later drafted a constitution. In December Iraq elected a permanent 275-member Council of Representatives. There were low levels of violence during the voting. In a show down with Congressional Democrats after taking control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] in the 2006 Congressional Midterm elections, Democrats retreated on their pledge to end the [[Iraq War]] early and bring the troops home. Democrats had threatened to withhold funding for the troops unless a date certain for withdrawal was set. After the final vote, 280-142 in the House and 80-14 in the Senate, the anti-War movement was defeated. The deal cut with Democratic leaders in exchange for their acquiescing to fund the troops calls for the President to sign legislation raising the [[minimum wage]]. <ref>[http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070525-122215-4854r.htm Congress OKs war bill sans time-line,] By S.A. Miller, The Washington Times'', May 25, 2007. </ref> One commentator remarked, "Despite all the talk of standing up to George W. Bush, despite all the bravado about taking control of Congress, despite the so-called mandate to change direction, Democrats caved....They claim that the majority of Americans are with them on the Iraq issue, but...President Bush, at the weakest moment of his presidency, still bested his Democratic rivals." <ref>[http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/phyrillas/05292007.htm Democrats Show True Colors], Tony Phyrillas, ''New Media journal'', May 29, 2007, </ref>

===2007 Troop Surge===

[[Image:20061228-1_p122706pm-0144-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush meets with National Security team, from left to right, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Peter Pace Thursday, Dec. 28, 2006, at Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. White House photo by Paul Morse]]
On January 23, 2007 President Bush ordered an additional 30,000 troops to Iraq.

<blockquote>
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence in its capital. But the Iraqis are not yet ready to do this on their own. So we're deploying reinforcements of more than 20,000 additional soldiers and Marines to Iraq. The vast majority will go to Baghdad, where they will help Iraqi forces to clear and secure neighborhoods, and serve as advisers embedded in Iraqi Army units. With Iraqis in the lead, our forces will help secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, insurgents, and the roaming death squads. And in Anbar Province, where al Qaeda terrorists have gathered and local forces have begun showing a willingness to fight them, we're sending an additional 4,000 United States Marines, with orders to find the terrorists and clear them out.
</blockquote> <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/603653/the_iraq_war_troop_surge_one_year_later.html</ref>

The surge was opposed by a majority of the United States Congress. However, it has resulted in significantly reduced sectarian violence. According to U.S. Central Command [[General]] [[David Petraeus]], violence in Iraq by December 2008 was at a 5 year low. <ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4B86G720081209</ref>

===Humanitarian aid===
President Bush has worked to stop the spread of the [[HIV/AIDS]] epidemic in [[Africa]]. In the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) $15 billion dollars over five years (2003–2008) was spent on fighting global HIV/AIDS and improving treatment.

===Economy===

Upon gaining office in 2001, Bush signed into law a $1.35 trillion cut in taxes over 10 years. The plan included the objectives of doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, reducing the tax penalty on [[marriage|married couples]] and fully repealing the [[Estate tax|tax on estates]]. A [[United States Senate]] Finance Committee Report estimated that with all the planned reductions fully phased in, the average family of four making $50,000 would save $1,825 per year.<ref>[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/bush.taxes/ $1.35 trillion tax cut becomes law], CNN, 21 June 2001</ref>

[[Image:20080919-2_p091908jb-0025-1-515h.jpg‎|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush stands with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, left, SEC Chairman Chris Cox, right, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson as he delivers a statement on the economy Friday, Sept. 19, 2008, in the Rose Garden. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] Since the tax cuts, IRS revenues increased from $1.78 trillion in 2003 to $2.56 trillion in 2007 with a 46.3% increase of individual income tax receipts. Surging $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, it is the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119189497675953035.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</ref>

During this same time period, spending mandated by Congress has also increased by more than 29% in inflation-adjusted dollars, representing an 11.4% increase in federal spending as a percentage of [[Gross domestic product|GDP]]. This spending has doubled the federal debt, increasing it from 58% to 66% of GDP. Defense spending increased 61%, and non-defense by 23% during the eight years since 2000. The largest non-defense spending increase has been for federally-funded medical expenses, at 54 percent.<ref>[http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/750-big-government-under-the-bush-administration Big Government Under The Bush Administration], AIER, 16 November 2008</ref> In total, Bush has increased government expenditures by the largest percentage of any president since Lyndon Johnson.<ref>[http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/article944806.ece Some think Bush was too liberal], Wes Allison, Tampa Bay Times December 21, 2008 quoting Gleaves Whitney, director of the Hauenstein Center for Presidential Studies at Grand Valley State University and author of a new paper, "Anatomy of a Divorce: Conservatives versus George W. Bush."</ref>

Bush presided over a period of unreal economic growth that reflected a bubble that burst in 2008. The [[housing bubble]] allowed people to cash in the rising value of houses; low interest rates that led to massive borrowing. Money flowed into the U.S. from around the world. The stock market that hit a record high in 2007, then plunged relentlessly downward, losing $8 trillion in value in 2008. Unemployment hit an all time low in March 2007, but started rapidly increasing after January 2008. Bush signed into law a minimum wage increase, one of the platforms for the Democrats in the 2006 Congressional elections, after the House and Senate included Bush's request of provisions for small-business tax breaks.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122001784.html</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/10/AR2007011001666.html</ref> Tax policies have been favorable to reducing the [[Capital Gains Tax]], with a subsequent surge in investment.

See [[Financial Crisis of 2008]] and [[Recession of 2008]],

The [[socialist]] [[Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007]] was signed by Bush into law on April 25, 2009 as a rider to the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, despite conservative opposition <ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/opposing_minimum_wage_hike_is_1.html</ref>. This measure hurt businesses and decreased America's competitiveness in the global marketplace.

===Supreme Court Appointments===

After the death of Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], President Bush nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge [[John Roberts]] to fill the vacancy. He was confirmed on September 29, 2005 by a 78-22 vote. To replace the retiring Associate Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] Bush nominated Judge [[Samuel Alito]], after his original nomination of Chief White House Council [[Harriet Miers]] was withdrawn because of widespread opposition due to lack of experience. After an unsuccessful filibuster attempt from [[United States Senate|Senate]] [[liberal]]s, Alito was confirmed on a 58-42 vote and was sworn in on January 31, 2006. <ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181091</ref>

===Involvement in the 2008 Presidential election===
In March 2008, Bush endorsed his one-time rival [[John McCain]] as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. However, due to the President's declining popularity in polls, McCain distanced himself from Mr. Bush on the campaign trail. At the same time, Democratic candidate [[Barack Obama]] tried to portray a McCain presidency as four more years of George W. Bush. The President spoke by videolink at the 2008 [[Republican National Convention]], while his wife Laura appeared on stage with McCain's wife [[Cindy McCain|Cindy]].
[[Image:George Laura Bush2008.jpg|thumb|left|300px|President George W. Bush and Mrs. Laura Bush pose for their last official holiday portrait, Dec. 7, 2008, in the Blue Room of the White House.]]

==Future Plans==
John McCain lost the election to Senator Obama, and President Bush met with the new president-elect to discuss the presidential transition between his administration and Obama's, which he promised would be efficient and without problems. George W. Bush's term ended at noon on January 20, 2009, at which point President-elect Obama was inaugurated. In an interview with ABC's [[Charles Gibson]] in December 2008, Bush said his retirement plans included moving back to his home state of Texas and writing a book. He also wants to build an institute at the Southern Methodist University to serve as a non-partisan public policy forum, to debate issues and run volunteer projects from.

== Family ==
George W. Bush is the son of [[George H. W. Bush]], who served as vice-president from 1981 to 1989 and as president from 1989 to 1993, and [[Barbara Bush]]. President Bush is married to [[Laura Bush|Laura Welch Bush]], a former teacher and librarian, and they have twin daughters, Barbara and Jenna. John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, Neil Bush and Marvin Bush are his brothers. Dorothy Bush Koch is his only surviving sister, as Pauline Robinson Bush died at age four of [[leukemia]].

==Faith==

George W. Bush is a member of the [[United Methodist Church]], and most people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. ''The Faith of George W. Bush'', a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the [[New York Times]] best-sellers list. <ref>http://www.christianlifemissions.org/ministries/georgewbush.htm</ref>
When asked where he would be without the influence of family friend [[Billy Graham]], George W. Bush said "I wouldn't be president." "It was just a conversation," said the younger Bush about a talk with Graham in the mid-'80s that changed his life. During the pivotal conversation Bush recalled saying, "'You know, Billy, I'm longing for something.' And I know that he sent me a Bible I still have. All I can tell you is that as a result of being inspired by Billy Graham, I started reading the Bible and shortly after, I quit drinking." <ref>Billy Graham and the White House [http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2007/08/billy_graham_and_the_white_hou_1.html]</ref> Bush's faith led him to veto a bill which would have provided for [[federal funding]] of immoral embryonic stem cell research.

In an interview with ABC's "Nightline" on 12/8/08, the president also said he probably is not a literalist when reading the Bible although an individual can learn a great deal from it, including the New Testament teaching that [[God]] sent his only son.

During his presidential career, George W Bush often consulted God when making important decisions. For example, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, reported that President Bush said that God told him 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan' and 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq' <ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa</ref> .
Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said: "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6418908</ref> <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/09/bush-says-creation-incompatible-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=347242</ref>
He added:
{{cquote|<big><big>'''''I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life.'''''</big>}}

==Polls==
When Bush entered office, his popularity rating was near 50%. However, after the [[September 11]] attacks, his popularity rose significantly, reaching an all-time high of 90%.<ref>[http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-po-1.html USAT Gallup Poll]</ref> Since, then, though, it declined as some of his policies have become unpopular (largely due to the media's persistently negative -- and [[liberal bias|biased]] -- reporting on the [[Iraq War]] and misrepresentation of his policies).<ref> Historical Bush Approval Ratings from University of Minnesota [http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm] </ref> In 2007, Bush had an approval rating of only 24%. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1624620720071017?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true Voters unhappy with Bush and Congress], Reuters, October 17 2007</ref> The same poll gave the Democratic controlled Congress an approval rating of only 11%). <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews]</ref>

== Farewell Speech ==
*''Delivered January 15, 2009 at the White House. His audience in the East Room included family, friends, Cabinet and some selected Americans President Bush had met in his eight years in office.''

'''Fellow citizens: For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President. The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence – a time set apart. Tonight, with a thankful heart, I have asked for a final opportunity to share some thoughts on the journey we have traveled together and the future of our Nation.'''

[[Image:BushSpeech.jpg|Right|thumb|300px|President George W. Bush reaches into the audience to shake hands with invited guests and staff members following his farewell address to the nation Thursday evening, Jan. 15, 2009 in the East Room of the White House, where President Bush thanked the American people for their support and trust. White House photo by Joyce N. Boghosian]] '''Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose story reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole Nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.'''

'''Tonight I am filled with gratitude – to Vice President Cheney and members of the Administration; to Laura, who brought joy to this house and love to my life; to our wonderful daughters, Barbara and Jenna; to my parents, whose examples have provided strength for a lifetime. And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me. I thank you for ....'''

'''...the prayers that have lifted my spirits. And I thank you for the countless acts of courage, generosity, and grace that I have witnessed these past eight years. '''

'''This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house – September 11, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock.'''

'''I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son’s police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.'''

'''As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before Nine-Eleven. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our Nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.'''

'''Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our Nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists’ movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them.'''

'''Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.'''

'''There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil day and night to keep us safe – law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.'''

'''Our Nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger. I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. America owes you a debt of gratitude. And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander in Chief.'''

'''The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.'''

'''This is the belief that gave birth to our Nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens. When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism.'''

'''So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity. We are standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic born alone in liberty is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.'''

'''For eight years, we have also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home. Across our country, students are rising to meet higher standards in public schools. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing peace of mind to seniors and the disabled. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes.'''

'''The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs. Vulnerable human life is better protected. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled. America’s air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner. And the Federal bench includes wise new members like Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.'''

'''When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy. These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted. All Americans are in this together. And together, with determination and hard work, we will restore our economy to the path of growth. We will show the world once again the resilience of America’s free enterprise system.'''

'''Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.'''

'''The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course.'''

'''While our Nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.'''

'''At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.'''

'''As we address these challenges – and others we cannot foresee tonight – America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.'''

'''Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.'''

'''President Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” As I leave the house he occupied two centuries ago, I share that optimism. America is a young country, full of vitality, constantly growing and renewing itself. And even in the toughest times, we lift our eyes to the broad horizon ahead.'''

'''I have confidence in the promise of America because I know the character of our people. This is a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a Nation where citizens show calm in times of danger and compassion in the face of suffering. We see examples of America’s character all around us. And Laura and I have invited some of them to join us in the White House this evening.'''

'''We see America’s character in Dr. Tony Recasner, a principal who opened a new charter school from the ruins of Hurricane Katrina. We see it in Julio Medina, a former inmate who leads a faith-based program to help prisoners returning to society. We see it in Staff Sergeant Aubrey McDade, who charged into an ambush in Iraq and rescued three of his fellow Marines.'''

'''We see America’s character in Bill Krissoff, a surgeon from California. His son Nathan, a Marine, gave his life in Iraq. When I met Dr. Krissoff and his family, he delivered some surprising news: He told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in honor of his son. This good man was 60 years old – 18 years above the age limit.'''

'''But his petition for a waiver was granted, and for the past year he has trained in battlefield medicine. Lieutenant Commander Krissoff could not be here tonight, because he will soon deploy to Iraq, where he will help save America’s wounded warriors and uphold the legacy of his fallen son.'''

'''In citizens like these, we see the best of our country – resilient and hopeful, caring and strong. These virtues give me an unshakable faith in America. We have faced danger and trial, and there is more ahead. But with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great Nation will never tire … never falter … and never fail.'''

'''It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your President. There have been good days and tough days. But every day I have been inspired by the greatness of our country and uplifted by the goodness of our people. I have been blessed to represent this Nation we love. And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other: citizen of the United States of America.'''

'''And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next President. And may God bless you and our wonderful country."'''

==Quotes==
* "Everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."
==''Decision Points==
''Decision Points'' is a memoir written by Bush and was released on November 9, 2010. Bush also went on a national tour after releasing his book. After two months, the book sold very well, surpassing two million copies sold.

The book is 481 pages long and is broken into 14 chapters, with the first two being about Bush before his presidency, covering events such as when he quit drinking alcohol and was governor of [[Texas]]. The remaining twelve are about events during his presidency, such as the War on Terror, the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Hurricane Katrina.

==Publications==
* [http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Points-George-W-Bush/dp/0307590615/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279195424&sr=8-1 Decision Points by George W. Bush], released November 9, 2010. ISBN 0307590615

==Further reading==
;Academic
* Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde. ''Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections'' (2007), 324pp [http://www.amazon.com/Change-Continuity-2004-2006-Elections/dp/0872894150/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001659&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Allard, Scott W. "The Changing Face of Welfare During the Bush Administration." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 304-332. Issn: 0048-5950
* Barone, Michael. ''The Almanac of American Politics'' (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010), highly detailed coverage of electoral politics and Congress.
* Berggren, D. Jason, and Nicol C. Rae. "Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush: Faith, Foreign Policy, and an Evangelical Presidential Style." ''Presidential Studies Quarterly.'' 36#4 2006. pp 606+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5018322436 online edition]
* Campbell, Colin, Bert A. Rockman, and Andrew Rudalevige, eds.. ''The George W. Bush Legacy'' Congressional Quarterly Press, 2007, 352pp; 14 essays by scholars [http://www.amazon.com/George-W-Bush-Legacy/dp/0872893464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001536&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]
* Congressional Quarterly. ''CQ Almanac Plus'' highly detailed annual compilation of events in Congress, White House, Supreme Court, summarizing the weekly "Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report". (annual, 2002-2009)
* Conlan, Tim and John Dinan. "Federalism, the Bush Administration, and the Transformation of American Conservatism." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 279-303. Issn: 0048-5950
* Corrado, Anthony, E. J. Dionne Jr., Kathleen A. Frankovic. ''The Election of 2000: Reports and Interpretations'' (2001) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99208680 online edition]
* Daynes, Byron W. and Glen Sussman. "Comparing the Environmental Policies of Presidents George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush." ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(2): 163-179. Issn: 1535-4738
* Desch, Michael C. "Bush and the Generals." ''Foreign Affairs'' 2007 86(3): 97-108. Issn: 0015-7120 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Eckersley, Robyn. "Ambushed: the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush Administration's Climate Policy and the Erosion of Legitimacy." ''International Politics'' 2007 44(2-3): 306-324. Issn: 1384-5748
* Edwards III, George C. and Philip John Davies, eds. ''New Challenges for the American Presidency'' New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. 245 pp. articles from ''Presidential Studies Quarterly''
* Edwards III, George C. and Desmond King, eds. ''The Polarized Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2007), 478pp; essays by scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0199217971/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Fortier, John C. and Norman J. Ornstein, eds. ''Second-term Blues: How George W. Bush Has Governed'' (2007), 146pp [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0815728840/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-4827826-5463040#reader-link excerpt and online search from Amazon.com]
* Greenstein, Fred I. ed. ''The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment'' Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003
* Greenstein, Fred I. “The Contemporary Presidency: The Changing Leadership of George W. Bush A Pre- and Post-9/11 Comparison” in ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' v 32#2 2002 pp 387+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5000773171 online edition]
* Gregg II, Gary L. and Mark J. Rozell, eds. ''Considering the Bush Presidency'' Oxford University Press, 2004. 210 pp. British perspectives
* Hendrickson, Ryan C., and Kristina Spohr Readman, "From the Baltic to the Black Sea: Bush's NATO Enlargement." ''White House Studies.'' (2004) 4#3 pp: 319+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5008838303 online edition]
* Hilliard, Bryan, Tom Lansford, and Robert P Watson, eds. ''George W. Bush: Evaluating the President at Midterm'' SUNY Press 2004
* Jacobson, Gary C. “The Bush Presidency and the American Electorate” ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' v 33 #4 2003 pp 701+. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5002052614 online edition]
* Jacobson, Gary C. "Referendum: the 2006 Midterm Congressional Elections." ''Political Science Quarterly'' 2007 122(1): 1-24. Issn: 0032-3195 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Milkis, Sidney M. and Jesse H.Rhodes. "George W. Bush, the Party System, and American Federalism." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 478-503. Issn: 0048-5950
* Moens, Alexander ''The Foreign Policy of George W. Bush: Values, Strategy, and Loyalty.'' Ashgate, 2004. 227 pp.
* Rabe, Barry. "Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: the Collision Between the Administrative Presidency and State Experimentation." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 413-431. Issn: 0048-5950
* Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (2007), experts on the 2006 elections in major states
* Strozeski, Josh, et al. "From Benign Neglect to Strategic Interest: the Role of Africa in the Foreign Policies of Bush 41 and 43." ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(1): 35-51. Issn: 1535-4738
* Wekkin, Gary D. "George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush: Puzzling Presidencies, or the Puzzle of the Presidency?" ''White House Studies'' 2007 7(2): 113-124. Issn: 1535-4738
* Wong, Kenneth and Gail Sunderman. "Education Accountability as a Presidential Priority: No Child Left Behind and the Bush Presidency." ''Publius'' 2007 37(3): 333-350. Issn: 0048-5950

;Pro-Bush
* Barnes, Fred. ''Rebel-in-Chief: How George W. Bush Is Redefining the Conservative Movement and Transforming America'' (2006)
* Draper, Robert. ''Inside the Bush White House: The Presidency of George W. Bush'' (2007)
* Hughes, Karen. ''George W. Bush: Portrait of a Leader,'' (2005)
* Gerson, Michael J. ''Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't)'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Heroic-Conservatism-Republicans-Embrace-Americas/dp/006134950X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001391&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* [[Bob Woodward|Woodward, Bob]]. ''Plan of Attack'' (2003) on Iraq war [http://www.amazon.com/Plan-Attack-Bob-Woodward/dp/074325547X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206001508&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]

;Anti-Bush
* Bartlett, Bruce. ''Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy'' (2006), conservative attack by former aide
* Ferguson, Michaele L. and Lori Jo Marso. ''W Stands for Women: How the George W. Bush Presidency Shaped a New Politics of Gender'' (2007)
* Greenspan, Alan. ''The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,'' (2007), memoir by powerful chairman of the Federal Reserve
* Moore, James. and Wayne Slater. ''Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential.'' 2003. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=107370497 online edition]
* Suskind, Ron. ''The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O’Neill'' (2004), complaints of ex Treasury Secretary [http://www.amazon.com/Price-Loyalty-George-Education-ONeill/dp/0743255461/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188802463&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search from Amazon.com]

;Bush aides
* Stephen F. Hayes. ''Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Cheney-Americas-Powerful-Controversial-President/dp/0060723467/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188802328&sr=1-1 excerpts and online search]
* Mabry, Marcus. ''Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power'' (2007)
; Primary sources
* [http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/publications/ERP/ Council of Economic Advisors, ''Economic Report of the President'' (annual 1947- )], complete series online; important analysis of current trends and policies, plus statistical tables
* George W. Bush. ''George W. Bush on God and Country: The President Speaks Out About Faith, Principle, and Patriotism'' (2004)

==See Also==

*[[Previous Breaking News/George W. Bush|Articles about '''George W. Bush''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Bush Derangement Syndrome]]
*[[Bush Doctrine]]
*[[Bush-hater]]
*[[Bushism]]

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

[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Texas Governors]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Neoconservative]]
[[Category:Iraq War]]
[[Category:Terrorism]]
[[Category:United States Veterans]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
{{USPresidents}}

==External Links==
* [http://www.bushcenter.com/ The George W. Bush Presidential Center]
* [http://warrioropen.com/ Warrior Open, Dallas, Texas, on October 10 and 11, 2011]
* [http://www.facebook.com/georgewbush George W. Bush on Facebook]
* [http://www.facebook.com/clintonbushhaitifund?v=wall Clinton Bush Haiti Fund]
* [http://www.honorfreedom.com HonorFreedom.com - a nationwide effort to correct the historical record about President Bush and the Bush foreign policy doctrine]

Christianity

2012-05-11T00:23:12Z

JeromeKJ: Undo revision 980743 by Bigmoney (talk)

{{Christianity}}
'''Christianity''' is the world's largest [[religion]], having 2.1 billion followers with a presence on all seven continents.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html</ref> It is a [[monotheistic]] religion that professes belief in [[Jesus]] (in the Hebrew original, "Yeshua HaMashiach") as the Son of [[God]]. Followers of Jesus are called Christians, meaning "of Christ" or "belonging to Christ".<ref>[http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=2661&dict=CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary]</ref> The early Christian faith was sometimes called ''That Way'', (Acts 19:1,9,23; 24:22), and its adherents were also called ''Nazarenes'' (Acts 24:5), evidently after the city of [[Nazareth]] where Jesus lived. The [[Acts of the Apostles|Book of Acts]] (Acts:11:26) records that "the disciples were called Christians first in [[Antioch]]." The title ''Christian'' is also used in Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16.

== Explosive growth of worldwide Christianity ==
[[File:Hong Kong Christians at Gateway Camp.jpg|thumbnail|left|200px|[[Hong Kong]] Christians at Gateway Camp. In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western World Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077</ref>
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/mckln/4815046728/in/set-72157624550425162 Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en license agreement])]]
''see also:'' [[Global Christianity]] and [[Internet evangelism]] and [[Evangelical Christians]] and [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

Christianity has seen tremendous growth over its 2000 year history.<ref>http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BChristianIncrease12.htm</ref> Christianity has recently seen explosive growth outside the [[Western World]].<ref>
*[http://pewforum.org/Christian/Faith-and-Conflict-The-Global-Rise-of-Christianity.aspx The global rise of Christianity - Pew Forum]
*[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077 Is Christianity taking over the planet?]
*[http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/The-stunning-growth-of-Christianity-in-China.aspx The stunning growth of Christianity in China]
*[http://gratefultothedead.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/the-african-apostles-how-christianity-exploded-in-20th-century-africa/ The African apostles: How Christianity exploded in 20th century Africa]</ref> In 2000, there were twice as many non-Western Christians as Western Christians.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077 Is Christianity taking over the planet?]</ref> In 2005, there were four times as many non-Western Christians as there were [[Western World]] Christians.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077</ref> There are now more non-Western missionaries than Western missionaries.<ref>http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=30077</ref>

In 2011, the ''American Spectator'' declared concerning research published in the ''International Bulletin of Missionary Research'':
{{cquote|The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new [[Islam|Muslims]] every day, and 300 fewer [[atheism|atheists]] every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the [[Western World|West]], while religion is thriving in the Global South, where [[Charismatic movement|charismatic Christianity]] is exploding."<ref>http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity</ref>}}

=== Implications of the growth of worldwide Christianity ===

''see also:'' [[Global Christianity]] and [[Internet evangelism]]

Given the increase in the public's access to global communications, it is thought that the more [[theology|theologically]] [[conservative]] non-Western Christian churches could influence Western Christianity to move in a more theologically [[conservative]] direction.<ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18774</ref> For example, non-Western [[Anglican]]s are exerting influence within the worldwide Anglican Communion against the stance of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion's North American provinces with regard to [[homosexual]] practices.<ref>http://www.maravipost.com/malawi-politics/district/5751-bishop-mw-anglicans-totally-against-homosexuality.html</ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2156406/Anglican-church-schism-declared-over-homosexuality.html</ref>

== Main Christian Divisions ==
[[Image:Anglican Christ Church.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Anglican Christ Church in Western Australia]]
'''The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:'''

* The [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1.1 billion baptized members) traces its roots back to [[Saint Peter]] whom Catholics believe established their church and the succession of [[Pope]]s as the spiritual leaders of Christendom.

* The [[Orthodox Church]]es (approx. 300 million baptized members) trace their roots back to the Apostles, and are organized in Autocephalous national or regional churches in communion with each other. Differing theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches in A.D. 1054.

* [[Protestantism]]: the largest Communions are the [[Anglican Church|Anglicans]] (approx. 115 million baptized members) and the [[Lutheran]] World Federation (approx. 68 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the European [[Reformation]]. It broke from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of [[faith]] and works in the role of [[Christianity#salvation|salvation]], as well as other practices of the Catholic Church that Luther saw as unBiblical, were raised.

== Christian Beliefs ==
Christian beliefs [[Christian apologetics|are well supported via a large body of compelling evidence]]. Theologians, over two millennia, have debated a definitive summary of the Christian faith. While its interpretations vary drastically, probably the most commonly accepted statement of the faith is the [[Nicene Creed| Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed]].

Christians and Christian denominations agree on many points of doctrine while disagreeing on some. According to an online Harris poll from 2003, 99% of all American Christians believe in [[God]], 96% in the [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]], 93% in [[Heaven]], 93% in the virgin birth, 92% in the survival of the soul after death, 82% in [[Hell]], 50% in ghosts, 27% in astrology and 21% in reincarnation. <ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref> Note that the latter two beliefs are in opposition to the religious tenets of most Christian denominations.

Nonetheless, the Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed offers a general overall picture of what Christian theology looks like, and serves as a useful outline and historic standard. Other creeds may prove helpful in research. See the [[Apostles' Creed]] and the [[Athanasian Creed]].

===God===
{{main|God}}
God is a triune being. Though there is only one Divine nature there are three Divine Personages: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are collectively called the [[Trinity]] or the Holy Trinity. While God is tripartite, this does not imply that Christians are polytheists. The doctrine of the Trinity is central to Christian theology, although several denominations that usually are considered Christian are non-Trinitarian. The God of the Christian is the creator of all things, is everywhere present, exists in all times, is transcendent, all-knowing (omniscient), just, and all-powerful (omnipotent).

A major theme of the Bible is [[love]]. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc.

===Jesus===
[[Image:Jesus' Baptism.jpg|180px|left|]]
During the reign of [[Augustus Caesar|Caesar Augustus]] the Son (i.e. the second Person of the Trinity) took flesh from a virgin woman and was incarnated as a man. He was born in the town of [[Bethlehem]] and was given the name [[Jesus]]. At approximately the age of thirty he was baptised by his cousin [[John the Baptist]] and began to preach in the area of [[Judea]] and [[Galilee]]. About three years later, his teachings and works of mercy prompted the Jewish authorities to plot Jesus' death. Jesus was [[crucified]]. He rose from the dead and was seen by over 500 people. He ascended to Heaven. The four [[Gospels]] contain the basic account of what Jesus did and said.

Jesus summarized his moral teachings in two commandments from the Old Testament:

"'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets." ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 22:37-39; [[Book of Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 6:5; Leviticus 19:18)

===Morality===
The fundamental principle in Christian moral teaching is [[love]] and forgiveness, as expressed by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. In the Hebrew [[Old Testament]] the idea is expressed in the Hebrew word ''hessed'', which is variously translated as loyal love, tender mercy, steadfast love, mercy, goodness, etc. in the [[New Testament]] the same idea is expressed in the Greek word ''agape'', which is variously translated as love, compassion, charity, etc.

There has been endless debate over how a person should express love for God in his or her moral behavior. This moral dialogue found expression in the New Testament, where the [[Apostle Paul]] addressed such controversies as [[circumcision]] ([[Epistle to the Romans|Romans]] 2:25-29), eating meat that was sacrificed to [[pagan]] deities (1 Corinthians 8), speculating about myths and genealogies (1 Timothy 1:3-5), and observing ceremonial dates and seasons (Galatians 4:9-11).

Regardless of a person's ethical interpretations, adherents commonly point to New Testament passages John 3:16 and 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 as scriptural depictions of love. The former states that <blockquote>"God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."</blockquote> The latter characterizes love, saying <blockquote>"Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."</blockquote>

Jesus Christ affirmed, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35) In trying to understand the reason for the growth of Christianity in a pagan culture, it has been noted that while love of one's neighbor is not an exclusively Christian virtue, it appears that the primitive Christian church practiced it much more effectively than any other group.<ref>E.R. Dodds, 1970:136-137</ref>

In addition to sacrificially showing care for those within the community as well as to those without, (cf. Gal. 6:10) the Christians elevated the sanctity of life, opposing abortion, infanticide, child abandonment, suicide, and gladiatorial contests.<ref>Kenneth Scott Latourette, ''A history of Christianity'' p. 244</ref><ref> Ted Cabal, Chad Owen Brand, Paul Copan, The Apologetics Study Bible, 274 </ref> While the primitive church tolerated the existing and pervasive cultural economic institution of slavery in the [[Roman Empire]], the mandate of equal pay and just treatment (Col. 4:1; Eph. 6:9) greatly ameliorated the treatment of slaves, while advising them to seek freedom if possible, (1Cor. 7:21) and requiring that the escape slave Onesimus be received back not "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved". (Philemon 1:6) The Christian ethos of love also motivated a great expansion in the building of hospitals.<ref>Albert John Ochsner, Meyer Joseph Sturm, ''The organization, construction and management of hospitals'', p. 17</ref><ref>Roderick E. McGrew, ''Encyclopaedia of Medical Care'', p. 135</ref> By 500 A.D., most large towns in in the Roman Empire had erected them.<ref>George D. Pozgar, ''Legal aspects of health care administration', p. 2</ref>

===Atonement===
[[Image:Dalí The Christ of St. John of the Cross.jpg|thumb|The Christ of St. John of the Cross by [[Salvador Dalí]], 1951.]]
Christians believe with the New Testament that the death of Jesus, in conjunction with His resurrection, is an indispensable event for the reconciliation of lost sinners with God. There are three elements they see to the understanding of His death on the cross.

- Jesus having the knowledge that His path would lead to his own death, desired and willed that that take place, and persevered in that path though there was opportunity for Him to avoid it. "I have power to take my life and I have power to lay down my life. I lay down my life for the sheep."

- Jesus saw that in His death there would be a way for people to be brought back to the God from whom they were alienated and lost because of their sins. This would involve a substitution of Himself to effect, i.e. atone for, that development. "For the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many." How this would take place was not new to the Jews of His day from their understanding of contemporary everyday practice of substitute payment - as in redemption of the first-born (Pidyon Ha Ben), or in the understanding of what aggadic stories such as the Binding of [[Isaac]] implied (see [[Midrash]]), but it was not the prevalent view that the Messiah was to be that payment. Though while alive on earth, he had hinted at it in sayings such as "unless a seed falls and dies, it remains alone, but when it dies, it brings forth..", it was only after He had risen from the dead that He explained Scripture (the Old Testament) clearly about the necessity of His death to have taken place. The disciples would henceforth preach, and Peter among them, that the death of Jesus the Messiah and His resurrection was for-planned and for-ordained by God the Father, and foretold in the Scripture (Isaiah 53).

- Christians of all generations have looked to the perfect Atonement, and the hope for reconciliation, accomplished by Jesus on the cross, to provide the means of understanding the solution to the vexing problems of the mind and of life itself.

===Salvation===
The Bible teaches that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). This is often interpreted to mean that everyone has displeased God and is now separated from him in a kind of alienation and enmity that results from the fundamental conflict between selfish human interests and God's interests (Romans 8:5-8; James 4:4). Jesus offered a solution to this Biblical dilemma in that, by repentance of sins and faith in him (Jesus), their sins would be forgiven. He said that "...the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 2:10) Jesus also said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17).

Jesus Christ taught that "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God" ([[Gospel of John|John]] 3:3). Protestant Evangelical Christianity often uses the terms "saved" and "born again" to mean conversion, while other Christians, such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, use the phrase ''born again'' as a synonym for [[baptism|baptized]].

Christians are expected to continue living by Christ's teachings (John 8:31), as is appropriate for "children of Light" (Ephesians 5:8-10). Some believe that this is necessary in order to be saved. Others say that this is a common misconception of the text, that it refers instead to the "fruits" of saving faith. Christians in the [[Reformed]] tradition (following the teaching of the 16th century French lawyer and theologian [[John Calvin]]) say that salvation cannot be lost. One Bible passage often cited is John 10:28-29 in which Jesus said of his own Apostles that they could not be snatched from his hand.

== Resurrection of Jesus Christ ==
[[Image:Jesus resurrected.jpg|thumb|left|200px|"The Resurrection" by Carl Heinrich Bloch]]
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ.<ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history, Gary Habermas is considered a leading [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] for defending the resurrection of Jesus.<ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection], ''Dialog: A Journal of Theology'', Vol. 45; No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 288-297.</ref><ref>"Wildcat" and Holding, J.P., [http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html Book review of "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus"], 22nd June, 2004 (Tektonics)</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf Jesus' Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism: An Apologetic] ''Criswell Theological Review'' 4.1 (1989) 159-74.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm Explaining Away Jesus' Resurrection:
The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories], Christian Research Journal / vol. 23, no. 4, 2001.</ref><ref>Habermas, Gary, [http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable] (Apologetics.com)</ref>
Other notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]],<ref>Craig, William Lane, [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html Articles: Historical Jesus]</ref> [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]],<ref>McDowell, Josh, [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html Evidence for the Resurrection], 1992.</ref> [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]],<ref>Jamauchi, Edwin M., [http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History?]</ref> [[N.T. Wright]]<ref>Wright, N.T., [http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm Early Traditions and the Origins of Christianity], ''Sewanee Theological Review'' 41.2, 1998.</ref> and [[Michael Horner]].<ref>Horner, Michael, [http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?]</ref>

===The Meaning of the Resurrection for Christians===
The fact of the Resurrection of Christ is also believed to produce certain effects on the lives of Christians.

1. It is because Jesus rose from the dead that believers now can resort to a living Savior to help and deliver them from sin and from situations overwhelming for them by their own powers.

2. The New Testament sees in the resurrection of Christ a certain vindication of what apparently to the world and to all beings was a failure and an overcoming of Him by His crucifixion.

3. The coming of Jesus back to life means to the believer that, indeed, his sins are totally forgiven. This is because believers know that His death was as a payment for sins - a "wage of death" for our sins that He received in our stead. If He remained dead, believers would know that the wage had not been fully paid.

4. It is a now-living Savior that Christians know can go before them, can closely lead them through life - as He did when He was on earth. This makes following Him practical and real.

5. The New Testament reveals that it is the Risen Christ who received from the Father the Holy Spirit and He, through Himself, ascended to the Father, has given the Holy Spirit to us. This gives the believer in Christ both the knowledge and the power to live a godly life and live a life that can be an intimately and personally directed one.

6. The resurrected Christ was no mere reassembling of the molecules and particles of the Body that had been crucified. It was, indeed, a physical body, but one that was fully glorified. It was a "spiritual body". Christians know that likewise, they will one day be granted the nature of a spiritual body, and be full of health. They therefore are full of hope and consolation, and consider that, even now in this life, there is an overcoming through Him.

==Evangelism==
In what is called the [[Great Commission]], Jesus sent his disciples out into the world to preach the Gospel (literally "good news") and make disciples.
:'''Great Commission'''
:''But the eleven disciples proceeded to [[Galilee]], to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in [[heaven]] and on [[earth]]." Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the [[#God the Father|Father]] and the [[#God the Son|Son]] and the [[#God the Holy Spirit|Holy Spirit]], teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."'' --[[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 28:16-20 [[New American Standard Bible|NASB]]
[[Image:Gleyre The Departure of the Apostles.jpg|thumb|240px|The Departure of the Apostles by [[Charles Gleyre]].]]
 

==Internet Evangelism==

see also: [[Internet evangelism]]

Campus Crusade for Christ International (CCCI) is one of the world's largest evangelism organizations within Christendom and has over 25,000 full time missionaries. In 2006, Alan Beeber of CCCI predicted that internet evangelism will result in more conversion that all other forms of evangelism for CCCI combined.<ref>http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/pdf/issues/LWP0206.pdf</ref> At [[YouTube]], Christians and Christian creationists have faced problems with [[atheist bullying|atheist cyberbullies]], but they [[Essay: Sharing your Christian/creationist videos on the internet|have developed methods to overcome this problem]].

==Early Church Community and Commitment: The Biblical Period==

The Bible records that that, at least initially, the church saw itself as united. In the community:

"...they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. {43} And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. {44} And all that believed were together, and had all things common; {45} And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. {46} And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."(Acts 2:42-47; 4:32)

This community was soon "scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles," due to determined persecution which resulted in the dispersed disciples going "every where preaching the word." (Acts 8:1,4) Christian communities were primarily to be found in two separate cultural and liguistic entities--the Greek and Latin-speaking empires of Europe and the mid-east, and the Aramaic speaking sphere of the Parthian empire of the mid-east and far-east. This latter sphere encompassed not only the eastern portions of Syria, the Arabian peninsula, and Persia, but also extended to portions of southern India and even China. To this day there are many [[Aramaic Church]] members in the Kerala province of south India.

==Early Church Community and Commitment: the Post-Biblical Period==

'''Justin martyr 100 A.D. - 165 A.D. From the "First Apology" (Defense)
'''

<blockquote>
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to genoito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion. (Chapt. LXV - administration of the sacraments)</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist = the Thanksgiving], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone... (Chapt. LXVl - of the Eucharist)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead...(Chapt.LXVll - weekly worship of the Christians)
</blockquote>

'''Tertullian (A.D. 160 -220), an Early ecclesiastical leader and writer, in his ''Apology'' (response to pagan charges) in describing the early church community wrote, ca. AD 197: '''

:We are a body knit together by one faith, one discipline and one hope. We meet together as a congregation, uniting together to offer prayer to God. We pray for the emperors and all in authority, for the welfare of the world, for peace and for the delay of the final end. We read our holy scriptures to nourish our faith, hope, steadfastness and good habits. We hear exhortations and rebukes. We take such judging very seriously – as befits those who believe they are in the sight of God – especially seriously when anyone sins so grievously we have to cut them off from our prayer, our congregation and all sacred things. Our elders preside over us, obtaining that honor not by money, but by their established character. There is no buying and selling in the things of God. Though we have a fund, but not because people can buy religion. Once a month, anyone who wants to makes a small donation – but only he who is able and willing; there is no compulsion. It is not spent on feasts, but to support and bury poor people, to provide for orphans, the elderly old persons, victims of shipwreck and those in prison for their faith.<ref>Defense by Tertullian (39), Trans. Rev. S. Thelwall. Modernized, abridged and introduced by Stephen Tomkins. Edited and prepared for the web by Dan Graves.</ref>

'''Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Pontus & Bithynia (northern Turkey) from A.D. 111-113, reporting to emperor Trajan of Christians, whom such pagan rulers found intolerable:'''

:... Those who denied that they were or had been Christians, when they invoked the gods in words dictated by me, offered prayer with incense and wine to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for this purpose together with statues of the gods, and moreover cursed Christ--none of which those who are really Christians, it is said, can be forced to do--these I thought should be discharged. Others named by the informer declared that they were Christians, but then denied it, asserting that they had been but had ceased to be, some three years before, others many years, some as much as twenty-five years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the gods, and cursed Christ.

:They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food.<ref>Pliny the Younger Letters, 10.96 </ref>

== Resources related to becoming a Christian ==
[[File:Hoffman Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane.jpg|thumbnail|170px|[[Jesus Christ|Christ]] in the Garden of Gethsemane by Heinrich Hofmann.]]
''see also:'' [[Resources on becoming a Christian]]

'''Below are some resources on becoming a [[Christian]]:'''

*[http://creation.com/good-news Good news of Christianity]

*[http://www.thewordfortoday.org/?page=C2000 Free audio Bible and Bible audio streaming]

*[http://www.allaboutgod.com/ AllAboutGod.com]

*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]

*[[Video testimonies of Christians]]

*[http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html Repentance]

'''Tips on choosing a Christian church:'''

*[http://www.allaboutreligion.org/choosing-a-christian-church-faq.htm Choosing a Christian Church]

'''Spiritual growth as a Christian:'''

*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9781576839324/The-Pursuit-of-Holiness-Jerry-Bridges The Pursuit of Holiness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.navpress.com/product/9780891099413/The-Practice-of-Godliness-Jerry-Bridges The Practice of Godliness] by Jerry Bridges
*[http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/529785.The_Complete_Book_of_Discipleship The Complete Book of Discipleship: On Being and Making Followers of Christ]

==Also See==
[[Image:Orthodox churches icon artwork.jpg|thumb|Orthodox Church's icon artwork.]]
'''Denominations or branches of Christianity'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]]
*[[Eastern Churches -- Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East]]
*[[Protestantism|Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Anglican]] ([[Church of England]])
***[[Episcopal Church]] (USA affiliate)
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Congregationalist]]
**[[Disciples of Christ]] and [[Churches of Christ]]
**[[Evangelical Christianity]]
**[[Friends]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Pentecostal]]
**[[Plymouth Brethren]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Reformed]]
**[[Seventh-day Adventist]]

'''Disputed'''
*[[Christian Science]]
*[[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
*[[Latter-day Saints]]
*[[Unitarian]]

'''Christianity in the World'''
*[[List of countries by number of Christians]]

'''Other articles'''
*[[Essay: The earliest Christian Church, a prison in Armageddon]]
*[[Aramaic Church]]
*[[Cathedral]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Christian apologetics]] (Defense of Christianity)
*[[Christians and the Law of Moses: an essay]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Church]]
*[[Conservative Christianity]]
*[[Eucharist]]
*[[Evangelical Apostolic Church of North America (Syro-Chaldean)]]
*[[Christian apologetics|Evidence for Christianity]]
*[[Gospel reading in the Church: the Turgama]]
*[[Inspiration of Holy Scripture: An Eastern Christian and Jewish Perspective]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Judaism]]
*[[Messiah]]
*[[New Testament understanding through the Jewish perspective]]
*[[Passover Seder]]
*[[Persecution of Christians]]
*[[Red-letter Christian]]
*[[Sign of the Cross]]
*[[Essay: The Way of Salvation]]
*[[Gates of Hell]]
*[[Anti Abortion activism: a personal essay]]
*[[Transmigration of Words in Religion: an essay]]
*[[Singing the Hebrew Scriptures]]
*[[Christmas in the Holy Land: an essay]]

'''Internet evangelism:'''

*[[Essay: Sharing your Christian and creationist videos on YouTube and the internet]]

==Further reading==
===Encyclopedias===
* Bodensieck, Julius, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church,'' (3 vol 1965), ECLS perspective
* Brauer, Jerald C. ''The Westminster Dictionary of Church History'' (1971), 880pp
* [http://newadvent.org/cathen/index.html ''The Catholic Encyyclopedia'' (1907-1913)], old but highly detailed and online
** '' New Catholic Encyclopedia'', edited by the Catholic University of America, 17 vol. 1967-1979.
*Cross, F. L., and E. A. Livingstone, eds. ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'' (3rd ed. 1997), 1840pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Dictionary-Christian-Church/dp/0192802909/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
* Elwell, Walter A., ed. ''Evangelical Dictionary of Theology‎'' (2001) 1312 pages; articles by over 200 Evangelical or Fundamentalist scholars
*Hastings, Adrian et al. eds. ''The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought'' (2000) 808pp; 600 articles by 260 Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox scholars; [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0198600240/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-4292297-2766841#reader-link excerpt and text search]; online at [[OUP]]
*''New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge'' (1911), ), major sources of older scholarly articles; mainline Protestant perspective
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc01.toc.html Vol. 1: Aachen - Basilians]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc02.toc.html Vol. 2: Basilica - Chambers]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc03.toc.html Vol. 3: Chamier - Draendorf]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc04.toc.html Vol. 4: Draeseke - Goa]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc05.toc.html Vol. 5: Goar - Innocent]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc06.toc.html Vol. 6: Innocents - Liudger]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc07.toc.html Vol. 7: Liutprand - Moralities]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc08.toc.html Vol. 8: Morality - Petersen]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.toc.html Vol. 9: Petri - Reuchlin]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc10.toc.html Vol. 10: Reutsch - Son]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc11.toc.html Vol. 11: Son of Man - Tremellius]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.toc.html Vol. 12: Trench - Zwingli]
**[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc13.toc.html Vol. 13: Index]

===Histories===
*Briggs, J. H. Y., Robert D. Linder, and David F. Wright. ''Introduction to the History of Christianity: First Century to the Present Day'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-History-Christianity-Century-Present/dp/0800638123/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search]
*Gonzalez, Justo L. '' A History of Christian Thought: Volume 1: From the Beginnings to the Council of Chalcedon'' (2nd ed. 1987); [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Beginnings-Chalcedon/dp/0687171822/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2: From Augustine to the Eve of the Reformation'' (2nd ed. 1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Augustine-Reformation/dp/0687171830/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823941&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 2]; ''A History of Christian Thought: Volume 3: From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century'' (1987) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Thought-Protestant-Reformation/dp/0687171849/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-12 excerpt and text search vol 3]
*Horsley, Richard A. ''Christian Origins: A People's History Of Christianity, Vol. 1'' (2006), 318pp [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Origins-Peoples-History-Christianity/dp/080063411X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200886474&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A History of Christianity'' (2 vol 1975) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christianity-Beginnings-1500-Revised/dp/0060649526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200823548&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search vol 1, to 1500], by leading Baptist scholar
*Latourette, Kenneth Scott. ''A history of the expansion of Christianity'' (7 vol 1939-1970), monumental history of missionary work worldwide
*MacCulloch, Diarmaid. ''The Reformation'' (2005), influential recent survey [http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
*McGonigle, Thomas D., and James F. Quigley. ''A history of the Christian Tradition: From Its Jewish Orgins to the Reformation'' (1988); ''A History of the Christian Tradition, Vol. II: From the Reformation to the Present'' (1996) [http://www.amazon.com/History-Christian-Tradition-Vol-Reformation/dp/0809136481/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200808706&sr=8-15 excerpt and text search vol 2]
*Pelikan, Jaroslav. ''Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine'' (5 vol 1975-91) [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Doctrine-Medieval/dp/0226653757/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search v. 3, 600 AD -1300]]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Reformation-1300-1700/dp/0226653773/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-4 excerpt and text search vol 4, 1300-1700]; [http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-History-Development-Doctrine/dp/0226653803/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201083460&sr=8-3 excerpt and text search vol 5, 1700-present] This is the standard history of Christian doctrine.
*Ward, Keith. ''Christianity: A Beginner's Guide'' (2008), 195pp

===United States===
* Ahlstrom, Sydney E. ''A religious history of the American people‎'' (1979) 1192 pages; classic history from broad perspective [http://books.google.com/books?id=5kFF6a1viGcC&dq=inauthor:ahlstrom&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Balmer, Randall. ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' (2nd ed. 2004), 655pp [http://www.questia.com/library/book/encyclopedia-of-evangelicalism-by-randall-balmer.jsp ''Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism'' online edition]
* Lippy, Charles H. and Peter W. Williams, eds. ''Encyclopedia of the American religious experience: studies of traditions and movements'' (3 vol 1988) 1872 pages; standard reference work; long essays by scholars
* Noll, Mark A. '' A history of Christianity in the United States and Canada‎'' (1992), by leading Evangelical historian [http://books.google.com/books?id=VGF3wbzzy9QC&dq=intitle:christianity+inauthor:noll&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES excerpt and text search]
* Queen, Edward L. et al, eds. Encyclopedia of American Religious History'' (3rd ed. 2 vol. 2009) 1200pp
* Reid, Daniel G. et al. eds., ''Dictionary of Christianity in America'' (199)
* Wooley, Davis C. ed. '' Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists‎'' (5 vol 1958-19820; 2565 pages

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/christians/ What Liberals Say - Category: Christians], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.christian.com Christian] Social Network
[[Category:Christianity| ]]
[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Worldviews]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Mitt Romney

2012-05-11T00:21:52Z

JeromeKJ: Undo revision 980745 by Bigmoney (talk)

{{Officeholder
|name=Willard Mitt Romney
|image=MittPortrait.jpg‎
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Ann Romney]]
|religion=[[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
|offices=

{{Officeholder/governor
|state=Massachusetts
|terms=January 2, 2003 – January 4, 2007
|preceded=[[Jane Swift]]
|former=n
|succeeded=[[Deval Patrick]]
}}
}}

'''Willard Mitt Romney''' (born March 12, 1947) is a former [[RINO]] governor of [[Massachusetts]] and successful U.S. businessman, currently the leader in the [[2012 Republican Primary]]. He was first runner-up for the nomination in 2008. If elected, Romney would become the first [[Mormon]] president. His father [[George Romney]], a former governor of Michigan, ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1968. Mitt Romney challenged incumbent Senator [[Ted Kennedy]] of Massachusetts in 1994 for his seat, but lost by 58-41 percent.<ref>[http://archive.newsmax.com/romney/ Romney to the Rescue: Mitt Romney's Got the Right Stuff for 2008] Kessler, Ronald, newsmax.com archives, retrieved April 27, 2012</ref>

Before entering politics Romney was a businessman in Boston, having served as CEO of Bain & Company, a management consulting firm known for outsourcing American jobs. His political start began during the financially unsteady 2002 Winter Olympics. He gained popularity in Massachusetts, a state known for being extremely liberal, and was elected governor in 2002. As governor he raised taxes several times. He unashamedly admits creating [[RomneyCare]], which is a complete disaster and forces everyone to buy health insurance and has resulted in long delays for obtaining medical services, such as an ordinary physical, in that state. [[Ted Kennedy]] and other [[liberals]] supported the bill and probably wrote key parts of it. Romney declined to run for reelection and announced his candidacy for President.

During his campaign for the Republican nomination in 2008, Romney was widely but incorrectly supported as a staunch conservative and ran on his business experience in the private sector. Romney fought a rough battle against Senator [[John McCain]] in Florida, Michigan, and other key states, but large losses on the Super Tuesday primaries ended his campaign. Romney dropped out of the race and endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] on February 14, 2008. His name was circulated as a potential running mate for McCain as their relationship improved, though [[Sarah Palin]] eventually became the vice-president nominee.

Romney has supported many far left positions: Romney has a pro-abortion record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in liberal propaganda claiming global warming; Romney has been criticized for standing behind his 2005 [[RomneyCare|health care plan in Massachusetts]], which featured a mandate requiring everyone to purchase health insurance as well as taxpayer-funded abortion. This plan is very similar to the 2010 ObamaCare bill that was adopted on a national level, and may have been the basis for it.

The lack of criticism of Romney by the mainstream media suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.

==Flip Flopping==
Romney's inconsistent track record on issues such as abortion and gay marriage has gotten to the point where he has gotten the nickname '''Multiple Choice Mitt.''' A man dressed as a dolphin calling himself Flipper has appeared at some recent conservative gatherings to bring attention to Romney's inconsistent stands on abortion and gay marriage. Although Romney now identifies himself as pro-life and anti-same sex marriage, he claimed to be pro choice and supported same-sex rights as late as 2002. These swaps coupled with his Mormon affiliation puts him at odds with much of the Evangelical right, but a PollingReport.com chart from September 2007 indicates that Mitt was still polling at approximately 10% within the GOP primary forecasts.

*Mitt Romney also changed his positions on gun control. He was originally for it, but recently joined the National Rifle Association, an organization opposed to it.

*Following the split of the first three major elections in the 2008 primaries, Ron Kaufman, a top adviser to Romney, stated that the battle between the top three candidates "is going to be like the Bataan Death March."

The Bataan Death March resulted in the death of approximately 9,000 prisoners of war during World War II, and has been labeled as a war crime.

== Personal Life ==
[[Image:MittRomneyYouth05.jpg|thumb|Ann Lois Davies and Willard Mitt Romney]]
Romney is the scion of an old Mormon family. His grandparents were polygamists who fled the United States in the early 20th century when the Mormon Church repudiated polygamy; his father was born in Mexico. The Romneys returned to the U.S. in 1911 when a violent civil war broke out in Mexico.

Mitt Romney is a devout member of [[The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints]], and spent time as a missionary during his youth converting Catholics and agnostics to Mormonism in France. In fact, his time as a student and missionary helped him defer from military service during the Vietnam draft,<ref>Michael Kranish, "The Making of Mitt Romney: Mormon church obtained Vietnam draft deferrals for Romney, other missionaries" June 24, 2007. The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/romney/articles/part1_side_2/?page=1 </ref> but he stated during interviews that "he had longed to join the soldiers in Vietnam and support the war effort." His father had stated in 1967 that he felt "brainwashed" by U.S. officials over the justification of the prolonged Vietnam war. This statement had been very costly in George Romney's 1968 campaign for president against Richard Nixon.

Romney claims to maintains a stable marriage with his wife Ann, with whom he has five children.

Romney is the son of former [[Michigan]] governor and presidential candidate [[George Romney]], a "Rockefeller Republican,"<ref>Lisa McGirr, ''Suburban Warriors''(2001) pp. 141, 222.</ref> who amassed a large fortune as an automobile industry magnate during World War II.  George Romney was popular among moderates during his presidential run and was well-equipped for victory; many of his political advisors had come from [[Nelson Rockefeller]]'s 1964 campaign.

==Business Career==
From 1978 to 1984, Romney was a vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. a worldwide management consulting firm, and in 1984, Romney co-founded a spin-off called Bain Capital. He invested in or bought many well-known companies such as Staples, Brookstone, Domino's, Sealy Corporation and Sports Authority. Critics say he advised corporations to cut their U.S. taxes by reincorporating in Caribbean tax havens such as the Caymen Islands, while maintaining their operations in the U.S.

==Record as Governor==
Romney served as governor of Massachusetts (2003-2007), with a generally [[conservative]] record that included economic expansion. He balanced the budget every year of his administration with out increasing taxes or increasing state dept. Romney turned a $3 billion budget deficit into a $500 million surplus by reducing government spending and added 80,000 new jobs by the end of his term. In 2004, 2005, and 2006 Governor Romney proposed cutting the state income tax from 5.3% to 5.0% <ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/08/mitt_romneys_record_on_economi.php</ref>. Although the Democratic super majority in the state legislator refused to budge. Romney vetoed 844 pieces of legislation, with over 700 overridden. <ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Governor/Mitt_Romney_Government_Reform.htm</ref> He vetoed an increase in the minimum wage, saying "there's no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs." <ref>Telegram & Gazette, 08/01/06</ref> Under Governor Romney the state abolished a retroactive capital gains tax that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay additional taxes and fees. <ref>http://www.americansformitt.com/</ref> Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation Executive Director Barbara Anderson praised Romney, saying "There was no one else out on the horizon and with the legislature almost entirely Democratic, we felt it was necessary to have a grown-up in the corner office. … And we were right to back him. He's been a really good friend to the taxpayers."

However, some of the actions Governor Romney took received criticisms from conservatives, such as supporting moderate fee increases and creating and the nation's first universal [[health care]] program. During his 2002 gubernatorial campaign Romney supported [[abortion]], his views evolved and would later take [[pro-life]] positions such as vetoing emergency contraception and vetoing [[stem-cell research]] that would allow cloning of human embryos. In 2006, Governor Romney testified before the [[United States]] [[Senate]] to support the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would limit marriage to one man and one woman. Additionally, Romney filed legislation to reinstate [[capital punishment]], but was defeated in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on a 99-53 vote.

Mitt Romney made no pardons as governor, "My conclusion was, if somebody has been convicted by a jury of their peers, and they’ve been prosecuted and the police were able to get the evidence necessary to put them behind bars, why in the world would I step in and reverse that sentence?" <ref>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/12/04/romney-on-huckabee-unlike-some-people-i-never-pardoned-anyone/</ref>

On [[Education]] Romney called for the privatization of the University of Massachusetts medical school<ref>Telegram & Gazette, 02/27/03</ref>. In 2004, he established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program, which rewarded the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with tuition-free scholarship to any Massachusetts public [[university]] or [[college]]. In August 2006, Governor Romney refused to allow former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, an outspoken opponent of the [[United States]] and [[Israel]], state police escorts during his speech at [[Harvard University]]. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/editorials/khatemi-at-harvard/38903/</ref>

In December 2006, Romney signed a memorandum of agreement with the federal government that would allow state troopers to enforce federal immigration laws <ref>http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=96543</ref>, however was revoked when Democrat Deval Patrict took office as Governor in January 2007.

== Political Views ==

===Abortion===
Currently, Romney claims to be pro-life, but his record is very spotty. At times he has claimed to be pro-infantacide.
"I am [[pro-life]]. I believe that [[abortion]] is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by [[judicial mandate]]." ([[Boston]] Globe, Mitt Romney Editorial, July 26, 2005)
<ref>[http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values America's Culture and Values] mittromney.com</ref> 

Despite having a largely pro-life record as governor, in a 1994 debate with Senator [[Edward Kennedy]], Romney said that abortion should be legal, declaring that "regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal." "Many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion", Romney said. "It is since that time my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/03/clarity_sought_on_romneys_abortion_stance/?page=2</ref>

In his campaign literature for the 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial election, Romney expressed a willingness to defend that State's pro-choice status quo.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/4</ref> He stated in a live, televised debate<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4</ref>:

{{cquote|"I've been very clear on that, I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose, and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."}}

===Civil Unions===
Romney claims to be opposed to the idea of [[gay marriage]], however he has voiced support for domestic partnership benefits and equal rights for [[homosexuals]], which is gay marriage in everything but name and an easy stepping stone on the vile gay agenda path towards homosexual recruitment.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/3</ref>

===Economic Agenda===
As President, Romney promised to pursue a conservative, pro-growth economic agenda. His number one economic priority would be to grow the economy — helping to create good jobs, raise incomes and preserve American strength. He says he would work to rein in excessive government spending and reform entitlements. To ensure America's continued economic growth, he promises to cut taxes — such as the Death Tax, savings taxes, corporate taxes and marginal tax rates.

Romney says he would also promote trade, bring market forces to bear in health care, pursue national tort and liability reform, eliminate excessive regulations that put a burden on our economy and strengthen American families.

===Immigration===

<blockquote>Immigration has been an important part of our nation's success. The current system, however, puts up a concrete wall to the best and brightest, yet those without skill or education are able to walk across the border. We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.<ref>http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Immigration</ref></blockquote>

Romney supports a strong stance on illegal immigration.<ref>[http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=91722 IowaPolitics.com: Romney Touts Strong Stance On Illegal Immigration]</ref> On 5/24/07, Romney spoke about how he was tolerant about gays and then he discussed the current illegal immigration bill before Congress:
<blockquote>He expressed less tolerance for illegal immigrants, and said he and President Bush have a difference of opinions on a bill that would provide a path toward legalization for an estimated 12 million people unlawfully in the country.

"He has his view, and other people have their views and I have my own," Romney said. "This is for all intents and purposes a form of amnesty in that everyone who is here illegally today will be able to stay under this bill."

The bill is unfair to people who are trying to come to the country legally, he said. People here illegally should be able to apply to come to the United States, but under the same terms as everyone else and behind those who have already applied.

"I don't think that we're going to round up 11 or 12 or however many million people and bus them out of the country. That's not what I'm talking about," Romney said. "Those who committed felonies, of course, would be deported. Those who require government assistance to stay here would surely need to get off government assistance and ultimately could not remain here on government assistance."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May24/0,4670,RomneyGays,00.html</ref></blockquote>

===Stem Cell Research===
Mitt Romney supports the right of scientists to research on embryos created during fertility treatments, which is essentially infantacide.<ref>http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/diseases/articles/2007/02/11/romneys_stem_cell_view_may_upset_the_right/</ref>

==2008 Presidential Campaign==
''Main Article: [[Mitt Romney 2008 Presidential Campaign]]''

[[Image:Dude and mitt romney.jpg|right|180px]] As chairman of the [[Republican Governors Association]], Romney campaigned nationwide for GOP gubernatorial candidates in 2006, building up a network of allies and supporters. While he did not run for reelection as governor, in 2004 Romney set up a federal political action committee (PAC) called the Commonwealth PAC, which raised $2.71 million during the 2006 election cycle. On January 3, 2007, his next-to-last day in office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney filed to form a presidential exploratory committee with the Federal Election Commission. He officially announced his candidacy for President a month later. Romney was the first candidate in either party to start running television and radio ads. The ads focused mainly on his record as governor, running the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics, and his work as a very successful businessman. Romney's five sons had been actively campaigning for their father, traveling around in a campaign bus called the "Mitt Mobile, A Five Brothers Bus."

As a presidential candidate Romney sought the support of the business community and social conservatives. He reversed moderate positions on abortion and gay rights to take a hardline conservative position on them, and on opposition to illegal immigrants. Opponents charged he changed too often. Romney was a leader in fund-raising, augmented by over $35 million from his own fortune. However he was little known outside of Massachusetts, so his strategy was to play for early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, then "sling-shot" the momentum into national visibility. Romney won the Michigan primary on January 16th, 2008, with 39% of the vote, edging out McCain with 30% and Huckabee with 16%. Romney was favored to win in the state of his birth, where his father, [[George Romney]] was governor from 1963-1969. After losing both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary (to Huckabee and McCain, respectively), Romney won a low-publicized Wyoming caucus. On January 19, Romney easily won the [[Nevada]] caucuses by 37 percentage points when there were seven candidates on the ballot, however, on that same day he placed a distant fourth in the [[South Carolina]] primary. After a disappointing performance on Super Tuesday, Romney announced the suspension of his campaign on Thursday 7th February. He expressed his wishes not to divide the Republican party and later endorsed Senator [[John McCain]] of [[Arizona]]. Commentators correctly speculated on his chances for a return effort in 2012.

===Fundraising===
Mitt Romney had done well in fund raising. During his first fund raiser as a presidential candidate, he raised $6.5 million dollars compared to an original goal of only $1 million. During the first quarter Romney raised more money then any other Republican presidential candidate with $23 million. However, a substantial portion of his funds ($17 million) came from his own personal wealth. [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/16/top_spender_romney_could_soon_run_short/]

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

==External links==
*[http://www.mittromney.com Mitt Romney for President 2008]
*[http://www.ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=17633 Mitt Romney: proudly, quietly Mormon]
*[http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/ Evangelicals for Mitt]
*[http://sparklepony.blogspot.com/2007/03/fresh-mitt-romney-juvenalia-hot-off.html Fresh Mitt Romney Juvenalia] Pics - Comments.
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjE4MmMyMzVkZjlhZGQzNzlhZjdmMDEzNjI3MzM4ZTA= Mitt Romney: “I Changed My View. Is that So Difficult to Understand?”] The candidate talks about his efforts to convince voters that his pro-life conversion is real. Byron York, National Review Online, November 20, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Y2ZkMWNkZDkzOTk1YTM0NTNkNmJlZThmYjJmM2ZmOGE= Did Mitt Romney Push Poll Himself?] Mark Hemingway, National Review Online, November 19, 2007
*[http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2EzODZjY2UxZTRhMWE2ZDk1ZWE5MGI0ZmRjMDViZTI= Team Romney on Push-Poll Connections] After reading the Hemingway piece, Kevin Madden, Romney for President campaign spokesman replies. Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review Online, November 19, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzliMDgzOWVlOGEwYThlMzc5ZDVlNzM2YjA4M2ZkYTg= Romney Stands for Faith] The candidate pushes back against push-poll attacks. Larry Kudlow, National Review Online, November 16, 2007
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGQ4YmM4Y2U3Yjc3MzYzNDQwYzk3YTVjMTI5YTkwNzg= Romney’s Religion], The Editors, National Review Online, November 16, 2007

==Blogs==
*[http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/ My Man Mitt]
*[http://libertariansformitt.wordpress.com/ Libertarians for Romney]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Romney, Mitt}}
[[Category:Massachusetts Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Mormons]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]

Mitt Romney

2012-05-11T00:20:08Z

JeromeKJ: Undo revision 980740 by Bigmoney (talk)

Christianity

2012-05-11T00:19:15Z

JeromeKJ: Undo revision 980738 by Bigmoney (talk)

George W. Bush

2012-05-11T00:17:43Z

JeromeKJ: Undo revision 980737 by Bigmoney (talk)

Talk:Perpetual motion machine

2012-04-12T22:48:45Z

JeromeKJ: /* The Uncertainty principle doesn't invalidate Perpetual motion... */

==Perpetual motion machine==

I'm sorry, but I think you're just wrong about the meaning of the phrase "perpetual motion" as used in discussions of thermodynamics, statements about the impossibility of perpetual motion, etc.

:    The perpetual motion, then, which has been the subject of such anxious and laborious search, is not a mere motion which is continued indefinitely. If it were, the diurnal and annual motion of the earth, and the corresponding motions of the other planets and satellites in the solar system, as well as the rotation of the sun upon its axis, would be all perpetual motions....

:    In short, a perpetual motion would be a watch or clock which would go for so long as its mechanism would endure without being wound up: it would be a mill which could grind corn or work machinery without the action upon it of water, wind, steam, animal power, or any other moving force external to it.

::—Dionysis Lardner, 1857, Natural Philosophy for Schools, p. 70

:    Perpetual motion is of course possible, as is stated in the first law of motion, "Motion continues in a straight line undiminished in velocity unless acted on by some external force." A top set spinning under conditions where there is no friction will never cease to spin. These conditions are very nearly realized in the motions of the planets and stars. The statement that energy cannot be destroyed asserts this possibility.

:    But by "perpetual motion" is generally meant a machine which will do work and keep going though energy equivalent to the work done is not supplied to it. Many attempts have been made to construct such a machine. They have all failed. The statement that energy cannot be created denies the possibility of such a machine.

—S. Lawrence Bigelow (1912), "Theoretical and Physical Chemistry," Theoretical and Physical Chemistry By S Lawrence Bigelow p. 26

Dpbsmith 18:20, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

Dpsmith, I moved this discussion to the talk page for perpetual motion, so others can benefit and contribute as desired to this.

Your quotes are helpful, and I agree that there are different definitions for a perpetual motion machine. But everyone agrees that a machine that does work without energy is impossible. So the above definitions do not lead to productive discussion. Besides, the earth is not really a perpetual motion machine. Our orbit would eventually become unstable, and presumably we would slow down eventually.

What is a fascinating question is whether motion can continue indefinitely in a closed system. One quote above implies it can, but I doubt most would agree. I wouldn't. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:59, 1 January 2007 (EST)

He's right Mr. Schlafly; the impossibility of perpetual motion is proven by the 1st law of thermodynamics, not the second.

Ben

OK, Ben, but define perpetual motion machine in a trivial away and it only results in a trivial answer.

How about this, let's define "perpetual motion machine II" that simply means a machine capable of perpetual motion (without a perpetual energy supply).

Now that's an interesting question that is difficult to answer fully! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:05, 1 January 2007 (EST)

Theoretically it is possible (the first law of motion), but practically it is impossible just because you wouldn't be able to eliminate all outside forces.

I also have a comment on your proof using the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

''"The only argument that a perpetual motion machine is impossible is based on an interpretation of the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]]. If entropy is always increasing, even in closed (and isolated) systems, then indefinite motion is impossible because an increase in the disorder of the system will inevitably disrupt the motion"''

Firstly, as Dpbsmith has demonstrated, this is not the only argument against perpetual motion.

Secondly, though it is ''almost'' inevitable that increaced disorder will disrupt motion, it still isn't logically proven; it is always possible that it might go on just a little bit longer.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

So, Ben, you seem to be saying that a "perpetual motion machine II" (as defined above) may be possible to build.

Really think so? If you doubt it, then maybe you can discovery a way to prove it is impossible. I don't think anyone has proven that yet, and no one else seems to be trying at this time either. But it would be worth proving.
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 January 2007 (EST)

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]: you said "But everyone agrees that a machine that does work without energy is impossible." Well, no. Historically the whole debate arose because for centuries people have believed that they ''have'' found a way to build a machine that does work without energy, something for nothing. There are still people who believe it. They tend to use the terms "free energy" and "overunity" to avoid the onus of the term "perpetual motion." An example of a modern machine claimed by its inventor to generate more power than it consumes is the Adams Motor[http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1287/adams/adamsall.htm], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_motor]. A classic fraud was the Keely motor.

My point is that the phrase "perpetuum mobile" goes back to the days before thermodynamics and refers to innumerable attempts to produce simple mechanical arrangements, typically involving shifting or pivoting weights, that on paper look as if they might really do work without an external input.

You seem to be interested in a different philosophical question, one which I don't know much about or whether there is any established name for it. I'm arguing strongly that you should either find out what that name might be, or invent something that doesn't use the phrase "perpetual motion" at all.

Here is my ''guess'' at what an answer to ''your'' question might be. If you use the best modern techniques, e.g. suspending a spinning object in vacuum via superconductive magnetism, you can get something that will move without additional energy input for a really long time. You can measure the rate at which it slows down very carefully or predict it theoretically.

My guess is that it may well be possible today to build a system in which the rate of energy loss is so slow that it can be predicted continue to run for hundreds of thousands of years if the apparatus remains intact; thus the limiting factor in how long it runs is not the apparatus itself, but unrelated external catastrophes (an asteroid hits it, the building it is in collapses in an earthquake, funding runs out and someone pitches the apparatus in the trash, breaking it, etc. etc.)

Probably the place to look for one of these things in real life would be the gyroscopes used in inertial guidance systems.

If the word "forever" is taken ''literally,'' then I don't know how you answer the question, because beliefs about the future lifetime of the universe change every generation or so. If the word "forever" means something like a mathematical limit—then I think the answer is: according to current understanding, it is possible to build a machine that will run ''indefinitely'' long, or as long as you like, receiving no external energy and performing no external work, where the actual limit on the running time is set not by the construction of the machine itself, but by the probability of external catastrophe.

I think. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:44, 2 January 2007 (EST)

OK, Dpsmith, you win on your point about what a perpetual motion machine ''really'' means. But I'm still interested in why perpetual motion (without producing extra energy) is impossible. The increase in entropy must prevent it. Underlying that may be the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics.

More thought and research would be worthwhile here. I think we're all convinced that the motion would eventually stop. But why? What force stops it? --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 2 January 2007 (EST)

:It's beyond my own knowledge. I suspect such questions are like the irresistable force and the immovable object, though. Provisionally, let's call your gadget an "endless coaster."

:Point #1: At least according to Newtonian physics as I understand it, if you truly had a closed system, it would not stop. But if you truly had a closed system, there would be no way to ''see'' that it was still moving.

:In order to observe it, there would have to be some energy exchange between the "perpetual motion" and the observer. I have an idea that since the observer is gaining information, the observed must be gaining entropy, but that's just handwaving and I don't know how to prove it.

:What I don't know whether there are any theoretical reasons that would make it ''impossible'' to have a truly closed system.

:Here's another angle. If we're considering, say, a ball bearing magnetically suspended in a vacuum by a superconducing magnet or something like that, if if there is a ''small'' amount of friction the result, according to classical physics, would be to make the ball bearing spin slower ''on an exponential decay curve.'' It would have a half-life, like radioactive decay. Perhaps it loses half of its spin every day. Well, according to classical physics, it would spin slower and slower but ''would never actually stop.'' Asymptotically approaches zero, never eaches it. Most likely (out of my depth again) ''quantum'' physics would say that at some point the spin becomes quantized, meaning that after some period of time it can't slow down any more. The spin must be either one quantum or none... and then you get all that crazy wave-function collapse stuff. You have a superimposed state in which the spin is one with some probability and zero with some probability, and the probability decreases over time.

:But really, once you start talking about whether something can literally go on forever, you're outside the bounds of science. I can't keep track of the number of times the "scientific" narrative of cosmology has changed during my own lifetime, and it shows no signs of settling down. Is the universe closed? Open? Continuously expanding? Oscillating? Obviously, ''if'' physics predicts a ''finite'' lifetime for the universe, then a "perpetual" motion, meaning one that would last longer than the universe, is impossible. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:03, 3 January 2007 (EST)

:: That's an interesting point of linking observation to entropy. But I do think even a purely closed system would stop without observation. Don't you? Perhaps Newton would not be pleased, but the Second Law of Thermodynamics suggests that motion does eventually stop. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 5 January 2007 (EST)

::: No, I don't think it does. The question here is whether anything says ''how fast'' entropy increases... and what counts as "motion."

::: I think that the Second Law applies to large systems with many interacting particles or bodies and is some kind of statement about their statistical behavior and how easily that motion can be observed.

::: Imagine, say, an ideal, large, sealed box whose walls perfectly hard (do not flex or absorb energy), and imagine that it contains one ideal moving billiard ball. By an "ideal billiard ball" I mean, again, one that is perfectly hard and perfectly elastic. If you have a single billiard ball in the box and it is moving, I think it keeps bouncing off the walls and moves forever. After all, energy is conserved.

::: Now, suppose, instead, that you have twenty-one ideal billiard balls, twenty of them at the vertices of an icosahedron and one in the center, all connected to each other by ideal springs. The entire structure, which I'll call a "blob," resembles a '''non'''-ideal ball. Put one of these into the ideal box and set it in motion with a gentle and identical force on each of those billiard balls, so that they are not moving with respect to each other and the whole blob moves together.

::: Initially, the blob moves as a whole, and you can calculate the kinetic energy just by observing the blob; 1/2 mv2 where m is the total mass of the blob and v is the velocity of the blob as a whole.

::: But when it strikes the walls, the billiard balls are going to hit it at more or less random times. The result is that the balls in the blob are going to start to acquire motion ''relative to each other,'' and soon there is going to be lots of relative motion ''within'' the blob.

::: This relative motion represents kinetic energy that belongs to individual billard balls within the blob, not to the blob as a whole, so because of conservation of energy, the energy we can ascribe to the blob as a whole is going to decrease, and so is the average velocity of the blob.

::: I '''think''' that what the Second Law is saying is that the way in which the blob hits the wall is essentially random, and that with each impact, statistically, more and more energy is going to end up in the form of billard balls oscillating with respect to each other within the blob, and less and less in the form of organized motion of the entire blob as a whole.

::: So that whereas the motion of the single billard ball "never stops," after a while the motion '''of the blob''' has stopped, and instead you just have a stationary blob with the billard balls within it oscillating on their springs.

::: In other words, the behavior of the system has ''degraded'' from observable motion of the blob as a whole to less-observable relative motion of the billiard balls within the blob. The system is in a less organized or "heat-like" state.

::: However, because in this case we're talking about fairly large particles and a fairly small number of them, it is clear that the system is still "in motion," just on a smaller scale, and since we posited that the box, the springs, and the billiard balls are all ideal (and don't absorb energy), by conservation of energy the balls within the blob also continue in motion forever.

::: Now, we go one step further and still keep the idealized, closed system with vacuum and perfect walls, but instead of a billard ball we use a real rubber ball. What the Second Law says is that the mechanical energy of the bouncing ball, 1/2 mv2 where we can measure the "velocity" of the ball as a whole, inevitably and statistically degrades into heat; the ball "loses energy" with each impact with the wall, the measurable v decreases, and eventually it comes as close to "stopping" as we like. Conservation of energy says energy hasn't really been lost; it's been transformed into heat energy. The ball is warmer than before, meaning the molecules within it are moving, and since we've defined the system to be closed, it won't cool down. '''It''' has stopped moving, but there is still '''motion.'''

::: So, I think the whole thing becomes a sterile exercise in what we mean by "forever," and how close we can approximate ideal conditions with realizable machinery, and whether the motion of molecules due to heat counts as "motion."

::: I don't think Second Law has anything to say about ''how fast'' entropy increases, or how close we can come to an ideal situation where entropy doesn't decrease at all.

::: In a way the two are related, because "frictionless pivot," for example, means "no entropy increase in the form of heating at the pivot."

::: Probably the place where the Second Law comes into play is that it says that even if you have a perfectly idealized "closed system," within that system ''energy'' won't be lost, but nevertheless energy ''observable as macroscopic motion'' can still degrade into heat energy ''no longer observable as macroscopic motion.'' [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:40, 5 January 2007 (EST)

== The Uncertainty principle doesn't invalidate Perpetual motion... ==

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle applies to sub-atomic particles like electrons only, we cannot know where they are at any given time <s>because of Brownian motion</s>. It does not apply to anything that can be seen without the aid of an electron microscope. Also, entropy doesn't increase, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics merely states that the universe tends towards Entropy. Also, the lack of creation of energy would be the Law of Conservation of Energy, which is present in many parts of Physics beyond the First Law of Thermodynamics. Also, the Earth is not a perpetual motion machine, to argue that it is does not border, plunges headfirst into absurdity and ignorance. Finally, the Earth has been slowing at a rate of about 2.2 seconds every 100,000 years due to frictions, no one considers it a perpetual motion machine. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 16:26, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:I don't think that Brownian motion affects sub-atomic particles. Brownian motion moves things like pollen and dust which are orders of magnitude greater.--[[User:DavidEdwards|DavidEdwards]] 16:44, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::No, Brownian motion is associated with sub-atomic particles, but has to do with collisions at an observable level, rather than their placement in shells. It would appear we are both incorrect, my mistake. [[User:JanSmuts|JanSmuts]] 17:02, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Well, then, do you think a [[perpetual motion machine]] can exist and, if not, then why not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::::Isn't friction usually the answer? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 18:19, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Another appeal to [[hearsay]]? The question doesn't request more hearsay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
::::::Sorry, you'll have to explain that comment. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 18:48, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

American atheism

2012-04-12T22:34:17Z

JeromeKJ: /* Past Low Stature of American atheists in American society */

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in secularism, the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Past Low Stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review back in 2006 found that among several groups listed, atheists were the group that Americans related least to in terms of their vision of American society and were the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism|decline in atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref> Some proposed answers to the 15 Questions can be found [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!|HERE]] and [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists|HERE]].

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>
== Past long Term Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T22:33:27Z

JeromeKJ: /* Past Low Stature of American atheists in American society */

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in secularism, the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Past Low Stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review back in 2006 found that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans related least to in terms of their vision of American society and were the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism|decline in atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref> Some proposed answers to the 15 Questions can be found [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!|HERE]] and [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists|HERE]].

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>
== Past long Term Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T22:26:27Z

JeromeKJ: /* Past Low Stature of American atheists in American society */

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in secularism, the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Past Low Stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review found that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans related least to in terms of their vision of American society and were the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism|decline in atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref> Some proposed answers to the 15 Questions can be found [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!|HERE]] and [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists|HERE]].

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>
== Past long Term Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T22:25:32Z

JeromeKJ: /* Low stature of American atheists in American society */ I get it!

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in secularism, the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Past Low Stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism|decline in atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref> Some proposed answers to the 15 Questions can be found [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!|HERE]] and [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists|HERE]].

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>
== Past long Term Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

Talk:Perpetual motion machine

2012-04-12T22:19:47Z

JeromeKJ: /* The Uncertainty principle doesn't invalidate Perpetual motion... */

American atheism

2012-04-12T22:11:54Z

JeromeKJ: /* Previous Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity */ More accurate title

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in secularism, the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}
== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism|decline in atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref> Some proposed answers to the 15 Questions can be found [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!|HERE]] and [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists|HERE]].

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>
== Long Term Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T22:11:27Z

JeromeKJ: Change required as a result of User:Conservative's unexplained move of a section

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in secularism, the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}
== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism|decline in atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref> Some proposed answers to the 15 Questions can be found [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!|HERE]] and [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists|HERE]].

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>
== Previous Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T07:03:19Z

JeromeKJ: /* American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign */ Answers to teh 15 questions

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in those who have no religious identity the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism|decline in atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref> Some proposed answers to the 15 Questions can be found [[Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!|HERE]] and [[Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists|HERE]].

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T06:57:01Z

JeromeKJ: /* American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign */ Consequential grammar change

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in those who have no religious identity the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism|decline in atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T06:55:48Z

JeromeKJ: There is no demonstrated decline in atheism in this article. Changed wording to reflect article content.

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in those who have no religious identity the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could create a [[decline of atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T06:53:30Z

JeromeKJ: /* Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity */

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial and relatively steady increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in those who have no religious identity the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could further accelerate the [[decline of atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T06:53:09Z

JeromeKJ: /* Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity */

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

Over the longer term there has been a substantial increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in those who have no religious identity the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could further accelerate the [[decline of atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T06:51:26Z

JeromeKJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) Andy, as a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

American atheism

2012-04-12T06:46:10Z

JeromeKJ: /* Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism */

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

However, over the longer term there has been a substantial increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

Notwithstanding the abovementioned increase in those who have no religious identity the Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could further accelerate the [[decline of atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T06:04:47Z

JeromeKJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) As a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in the references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T06:03:47Z

JeromeKJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that you yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::P.S. As a result of this discussion I found a couple of articles which appear to confirm that GPS satellites have their clocks adjusted by about 38,000 nanoseconds per day before launch in compliance with relitavistic predictions (both Special and General Relativity are taken into account). The articles are [http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp here] and [http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html here]. Is there really any question that this is what is happening? I would think that if these sources are to be questioned that some sort of reference should be provided. A mere assertion that the adjustments are as a result of quantum mechanical effects and that it is a matter of logic would not usually be enough for any serious encyclopedia. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:53, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::The references are [[hearsay]]. Logic is far more compelling, more efficient, and more likely to lead to the correct result.

::::::To take the analogy mentioned above, if you agree that [[perpetual motion machines]] are impossible, what is the reason?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:45, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:Quantum mechanics gives a probabilistic model of phenomena. Indeed, the page you linked for quantum mechanics states:
::"If we measure such an observable, generally the wave function does not predict exactly which value we will obtain. Instead, the wave function gives us the probability that a certain value will be obtained."
:If this is the case, that means that Quantum mechanical phenomena are ''unpredictable''. How is it that clock adjustments can be made based on unpredictable events, ie, probabilities?
:I'd also like to know how the GPS system is affected by these phenomena.
:--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 01:51, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Logic is a nice thing. But engineers like to calculate. So could you give us a Ballpark estimate for the quantum mechanic effects which come into play here? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:59, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:(Edit conflict x2) As a lawyer I can assure you that hearsay is a [[legal]] concept which is of little use in this sort of scientific discussion. Whilst I understand that non-legally trained people sometimes confuse the nature and applicability of the concept, I can confirm that it has no relevance here.

:The difficulty here arises from your wanting to assert the truth of a matter without providing either references or even the basis for you own logic. Just saying "quantum mechanics" is hardly enlightening. Do you deny that GPS satellite clocks are adjusted by approximately 38,000 nanoseconds as referred to in teh references that I provided? If not, do you say that there is a quantum calculation that accounts for that adjustment? What is that quantum calculation and what is it based on? I am really having difficulty in understanding the basis for all of this. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 02:03, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

American atheism

2012-04-12T05:41:51Z

JeromeKJ: More accurate header

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline in the rate of increase of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

However, over the longer term there has been a substantial increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could further accelerate the [[decline of atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

American atheism

2012-04-12T05:40:43Z

JeromeKJ:

In 2007, a Pew Forum survey found that the [[Atheist Population|atheist population]] in the United States was 1.6% of the American population.<ref>[http://religions.pewforum.org/reports 2007 Pew Forum report]</ref>

== Decline of American 1990s secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Decline of American 1990s secularism]]

In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) reported:
{{cquote|The 1990s was the decade when the “secular boom” occurred – each year 1.3 million more adult Americans joined the ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual increase has halved to 660,000 a year...

Regarding belief in the divine, most Nones are neither [[atheism|atheists]] nor [[theism|theists]] but rather [[agnosticism|agnostics]] and [[deism|deists]] (59%) and perhaps best described as [[Philosophical skepticism|skeptics]].<ref>[http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/2009/09/22/american_nones_the_profile_of_the_no_religion_population/ Press: Americans Who Don’t Identify with a Religion No Longer a Fringe Group]</ref>}}

== Increase in Those Who Have No Religious Identity ==

However, over the longer term there has been a substantial increase in the number of Americans having no religious identity. Gallup has been specifically tracking this trend since 1948.<ref>[http://www.gallup.com/poll/128276/Increasing-Number-No-Religious-Identity.aspx Gallup: In U.S., Increasing Number Have No Religious Identity]</ref> At that point a mere 2% of Americans volunteered "no religion". In the intervening years, however, the numbers have steadily grown so that in 2008 the figure had reached some 16% of the population.

The bottom line of the research is described as follows:
{{cquote|Gallup surveys confirm a downward drift in religious identity among Americans, as well as a slight increase in the number of Americans who view religion as old-fashioned and out of date.

Lack of identification with a formal religious group does not necessarily mean religion is irrelevant in a broad sense in a person's life. One can remain quite religious, or at least spiritual, while at the same time eschewing attachment to or identity with a formal religion or denomination.

Still, trends on an additional Gallup question indicate that there has in fact been a slight uptick in the percentage of Americans who say religion is not very important in their daily lives -- from a range of 11% to 14% through most of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s to 19% over the past two years. This suggests that there may be some diminution of "inner" religion accompanying the reduction in explicit religious identity and the increased perception that religion is largely old-fashioned and out of date.}}

== Demographics and the expected further decline of American secularism ==

''See also:'' [[Demographics and the expected decline of American secularism]]

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning American secularism:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as [[abortion]]. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/03/question-evolution-campaign-is-reaching.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

== Low stature of American atheists in American society ==

Concerning various '''[[views on atheists]]''', research in the American Sociological Review finds that among several groups listed, atheists are the group that Americans relate least to in terms of their vision of American society and are the group most likely to be mentioned as one that Americans would not want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref> Dr. [[Sam Harris]] is a founder of the [[New Atheism]] movement. [[Sam Harris]] is quite aware of the stigma surrounding atheism and has even advocated that atheists no longer call themselves atheists.<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref> In fact, Dr. Harris has said concerning the label of atheist, "It's right next to child molester as a designation."<ref>http://newsinitiative.org/story/2007/06/19/interview_with_an_atheist</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Position:
! This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society:
! I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== American atheism and the Question evolution! campaign ==

''See also:'' [[Question evolution! campaign]] and [[Atheists doubting the validity of atheism]]

The [[Question evolution! campaign]] by [[Creation Ministries International]] could further accelerate the [[decline of atheism]] in the United States. Since [[World War II]] a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the [[evolution|theory of evolution]] which employs [[methodological naturalism]] have been atheists.<ref>
* Dr. Don Batten,[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32, December 1997.
* [[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]
</ref> In 2011, a campaign called the [[Question evolution! campaign]] was launched by the [[Bible|biblical]] [[creation]] organization [[Creation Ministries International]] which is a worldwide "[[grassroots|grass-roots]] movement to challenge the anti-[[Christianity|Christian]] [[dogma]] of [[evolution]]".<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The focus of the Question evolution! campaign is on "15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer."<ref>[http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign]</ref> The 15 questions posed to evolutionists (and undecided individuals) can be found [http://creation.com/15-questions HERE] The campaign will be primarily conducted in the [[United States]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[Canada]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Singapore]] and [[South Africa]].<ref>http://creation.com/question-evolution</ref>

In February of 2012, supporters of the Question evolution! camoaign have indicated that 160 creationist groups in North America are going to be contacted concerning the campaign.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-page-question-evolution-booklet.html 50 page Question Evolution! booklet. Question Evolution! Campaign runaway train is going to be released]</ref>

== See also ==

*[[American Atheists]]
*[[Atheist Population]]
*[[Global atheism]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Decline of atheism]]
*[[Atheist whining]]

Essay:

*[[Essay: 10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%|10 reasons why American atheism will be cut by at least 50%]]

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

[[Category:Sociology]]
[[Category: Atheism]]

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T04:53:34Z

JeromeKJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T04:22:01Z

JeromeKJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T04:21:30Z

JeromeKJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

{| style=" width:95%; text-align:left; background:{{{background}}}; color:{{{color|black}}}; border:3px solid black; clear:both " align="center"
|-
|width="2%" style="text-align:center" cellpadding="5"|'''!'''
|'''Attention: Please review previous points on the discussion page before adding your own commentary. Many topics have been discussed many, many, times. If you have something new to add, feel free, but it is not necessary or helpful to read the same arguments over and over and over.'''

'''Raising arguments which have been discussed before wastes the time of valuable editors and repeatedly doing so violates [[90/10]].'''

For older discussions, see the archive [[Talk:Theory of relativity/index|index]]. 
|valign="top" style="text-align:right"|[[Image:Conservlogo.png|65px]]
|}


== Mass depending on direction ==

The article states:
:''There is a logical difficulty, however, to an increase in relativistic mass. Such increase would only exist in the direction of motion, and the rest mass would remain intact with respect to a force applied in a direction orthogonal to velocity. Neither mass nor energy is a vector, and the notion of the mass of an object having different values depending on the direction of an applied force is illogical.''

As [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] on 8 July 2007 (EDT): ''This paragraph is nonsense [..] The relativistic mass applies no matter what the direction of the force is.''

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:45, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Neutrinos now obey speed limit ==

The observation sited in the first sentence of this article has been discredited. [http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/02/official-word-on-superluminal-ne.html?ref=hp] It appears that a loose fiber-optics cable is to blame for the misreadings. I suggest editing this first sentence, and any other mention of this in the article.--[[User:CarloP|CarloP]] 18:51, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:Issues concerning the neutrino experiment are not yet fully resolved. No problam: I replaced it with another counterexample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:12, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== Why does Conservapedia seek to discredit Relativity ==

Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?

Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:''Conservapedia'' seeks the truth, not merely what the [[lamestream media]] claim is the truth. Moreover, once one accepts a logical fallacy, then anything false can be proven from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)
:: Ahh.... But the fact that the conclusion is false does not necessarily render the basis false. I could say "Andy Schlafly founded Conservapedia and therefore I am a pig monkey." I am not a pig monkey, and even if I were, that has nothing to do with you founding this website. But you still did. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:58, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:When looking around the internet, it is obvious that Conservapedia's classification of relativity as [[pseudoscience]] is a source of some amusement and contempt. Aschlafly, could you please answer the two questions I raised above? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:27, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, liberal peer pressure from "around the internet" does not illuminate the truth. If what liberals on the internet said made a dime's bit of difference, then the [[Bible]] would not be the best selling book (by far) and the percentage of people who are [[conservative]] would not be growing (as it does).

::"Can someone explain why Conservapedia is so opposed to the Theory of Relativity?" Because it's false, it confuses people, it misleads people into stop reading the Bible, and its orthodoxy interferes with the advancement of science for the benefit of all. Other than that, it's not a bad theory!

::"Is there some philosophical or conservative/liberal basis for this opposition?" The only bias is by liberals who shout down any criticism of the theory. If the theory were so clearly true, then there would be no need for some liberals to rely on [[censorship]] in propping it up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:10, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== GPS and Relativity ==

I note that anyone using a GPS is relying on the Theory of Relativity being true, since calculations derived from Relativity are used within a GPS. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 18:32, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

:GPS does '''''not''''' rely on the [[Theory of Relativity]], and this has been thoroughly explained on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:34, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

::Hi Aschlafly, I've located at least some of the discussion re GPS in the archives of this talk page, and there a lot of references for me to examine before I can make any further serious comments; certainly there are some references which appear to state that GPS relies on relativity. Can you perhaps draw my attention to what you consider the most important (half-dozen or so) references which indicate that the GPS system does NOT rely on relativity so that I have somewhere to start from? In the meantime I'll continue editing and improving less controversial articles as I have been doing for the last two months (my talk page lists nearly 40 articles I can usefully contribute to). [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 14:17, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:::This note 7 is on [[Counterexamples to Relativity]]:

::::Contrary to the claims of Relativists, the GPS system has never been based on Relativity. The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, observed that "The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require" in part because "the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter – less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth.”

:::The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing: the small effects claimed by the special and general theories nearly cancel each other out for orbiting satellites. From an engineering perspective, it makes far more sense simply to adjust the clocks using synchronization rather than relying on (dubious) theoretical claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:36, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Another false claim because of sloppy reading: In the same source by The Time Service Department, U.S. Navy, you can find how the authors Fliegel and DiEsposti describe what is happening to the clocks in the satellites:
''Since GPS receivers work in the time and not in the frequency domain, they handle the velocity, gravity, and acceleration shifts differently than described above. First, each GPS space vehicle (SV) clock is offset from its nominal rate by about -4.45 × 10-10 (= -38 microseconds per day) to allow for the relativistic offsets between the differences between the SV and the ground. Of this -38 microseconds per day, about -45 are due to the gravitational potential difference between the SV at its mean distance and the earth's surface, and +7 to the mean SV speed, which is about 3.87 km/sec. (p. 193).

The text is about the necessity of ''further'' corrections by the ''operational control system'' - there are corrections ''already'' installed in the clocks!

''The Theory of Relativity does not even assert that it would require significant adjustments to GPS timing:'' This sentence is wrong. It has shown to be wrong a couple of times, so it starts to become a lie. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:12, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Theory of Relativity]] was not used to develop GPS, nor would it be sensible to waste time and money doing so. Synchronization is cheaper, simpler, and more reliable. The above quote does not contradict this obvious truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

::The fact that these offsets are implemented in the clocks '''in accord with the theory of relativity''' as you can read in the very source you quoted shows that the [[Theory of Relativity]] is used in the GPS - and this from the very beginning of the project! Please, start to read your sources - completely! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:37, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Please, before we get into any more debate, could someone supply some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS? [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 16:41, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

:Aschlafly took his quote from [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview] by Henry F. Fliegel and Raymond S. DiEsposti (though he probably isn't aware of this). The paper is about relativistic effects due to moving GPS-'''''receivers''''' (or GPS-receivers in high altitudes) and comes to the conclusion, that at the moment, they don't have to include additional relativistic corrections.

:Aschlafly interprets this as if ''no'' relativistic corrections are implemented in the GPS.
:However, in the paper itself, you will find the section I quoted above, where the authors describe such very corrections within the clocks of the satellites.
:I'm afraid that Aschlafly won't come up with ''some actual references (not quotes from) which state that relativity is not used in GPS'' as there aren't any.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:53, 6 April 2012 (EDT)

Folks, the burden of proof is on anyone who claims that the [[Theory of Relativity]] was used to design GPS. That burden includes describing who, when, where, how, and why. It didn't happen. And if it did, the person who wasted time and money on such a frivolous approach should explain the mistake, because engineers can simply synchronize the clocks far more accurately than the theory ever could.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:It looks to me as if you are trying to put impossible conditions prior to any debate. To avoid a lengthy debate all you have to do is produce some actual references which support your point of view. Is this too much to ask?

:If it didn't happen then you should be able to produce some evidence of this, so '''some actual references please'''. The only 'evidence' you have produced so far is an out-of-context quote from a paper which is concerned primarily with GPS receivers (that same paper mentions the use of relativity-related adjustments to the clocks on the GPS satellite transmitters). Surely you must have more than this. Will you accept evidence from engineers and companies involved in designing and building the GPS system? If not, why not? Who would you accept evidence from? The US Department of Defense? Do you seriously expect a member of the public to be able to access internal design documents as your "who, when, where, how, and why" statement implies?

:If you care to check my contribution history you will see that I am actively contributing non-controversial information to articles. This discussion re GPS etc. is only a small part of my activities on Conservapedia. Since I've barely started on considering and consolidating what evidence there is re GPS I would rather have a week or so to look at the evidence before getting into a debate. This should give you ample time to come up with some references to support the separation of GPS and relativity. Simple searches via Google turn up numerous instances where relativity is claimed to be relevant to GPS, but I can't find anything to the contrary and '''I need your help to do so'''. I would really like to see evidence from '''both sides''' of the discussion before entering the debate, so '''some actual references please'''. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 19:15, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

::Roland, you're requesting proof that something didn't happen. Moreover, someone with an engineering background (such as myself) would not expect it to have happened. It is like asking for a reference that no green cheese was found on the Moon. No such scientific reference is likely to exist, nor would anyone expect such a reference to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:28, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:: Every single article on GPS says that relativistic adjustments are made to the satellite clocks. Some give the formulas and some give quantitative data on the adjustments. Textbooks explain why the adjustments are necessary. I don't see any reason to doubt that GPS uses relativistic adjustments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:52, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::GPS does make synchronizing adjustments. Call them whatever you like, but those adjustments are not made based on predictions by the [[Theory of Relativity]]. Indeed, it would be a silly waste of time and money to synchronize in such a manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:07, 8 April 2012 (EDT)
:::: Unless you drive the flying Delorean from ''Back to the Future'', relativity would say that its effect on your car when you're driving at normal speeds is so small it need not be accounting for. The normal error for GPS (about 40 feet) is many magnitudes higher than the error relativity would cause. Now, the GPS in the Flying DeLorean would be another issue. But until that's invented, let's not worry about it, ok? Of course, if you were orienteering, your speed would be even slower than if you were driving. Indeed, if you were moving at any normal speed (even a supersonic jet), relativity would be incredibly small (assuming that it exists as scientists explain it). [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 22:14, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::''GPS does make synchronizing adjustments'' Not only simple synchronizing: read the specifications for the GPS, read the sources ''in full'' which you are quoting, and you will see that all these engineers and scientists don't give a damn that you think that they are wasting ''time and money''.
:::::Aschlafly, your position is only tenable as you are willing to ignore most of the data which is presented to you. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:12, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, please correct me if I am misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you believe very firmly that relativity has nothing to do with GPS, even though you are unwilling to present any evidence to support this belief, and wish to put severe restrictions on what 'proof' of the relationship other folks may present. I raised some five questions above as to what sort of evidence you might consider. Could you please answer these questions.

::I'd like to ask Mr. Schafly if he could explain what the clock adjustments on GPS satellites are for, the article is not clear, and neither is anything on this talk page.--[[User:Cahnkj|Cahnkj]] 00:44, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Cahnkj, herewith a summary of the clock-adjustment situation as I (RolandPlankton) see it. Newton's equations of motions say nothing about how clocks keep time. Einstein's equations of relativity imply that identical clocks will vary in their timekeeping (tick at different rates) if they are travelling at different speeds, or if they are at different heights in a gravitational field, or if they are subject to different accelerations; see [http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol%2028_16.pdf GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview]. Now the satellites used in the GPS system require very accurate clocks which are in step with ground-based clocks. The paper just quoted provides the various relativistic equations which apply - the satellites are travelling faster than a ground-based receiver, and are at a different height in a gravitational field. Prior to launch the clocks in the GPS satellites are deliberately set to a different tick rate from ground-based clocks, so that when they are in orbit the clocks will appear to tick at the same rate; the difference in tick rates is about 38 nanoseconds per day, and this adjustment can be calculated from the relevant relativistic equations.

:::But the problem is that Aschlafly rejects the Theory of Relativity, and hence rejects any calculation based on that. The only serious argument he has put forth on this current talk page (see preceding section) is an appeal to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Truth the truth]; the quote he provides above is also demolished above. You may wish to consult [[Counterexamples to Relativity]], which is rebutted point by point in [[Essay:Rebuttal to Counterexamples to Relativity]].

:::Hope this doesn't add too much to the confusion. [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 12:07, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, as a separate issue, in view of of your apparent attitude to references, could I ask you to have a look at the articles I have been working on over the last two months: [[Pi]], [[Programming language]], [[Compiler]], and the work-in-progress [[Chomsky hierarchy]]. Obviously I'm only asking you to consider the changes I have made. In particular, can you check if the references are acceptable to you, and can you also check that the general style and level of writing is in accordance with Conservapedia's aims? The next article I intend to turn my intention to is [[Context-Free Grammar]], since it seems to me that this fails to satisfy [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Style]] "Articles on complex topics need an introduction which assumes little or no previous knowledge". [[User:RolandPlankton|RolandPlankton]] 11:03, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Roland, your good edits are appreciated and I've seen no complaints about them. I agree that the [[Context-Free Grammar]] would benefit from a better introduction and look forward to reading what you add there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 9 April 2012 (EDT)

== Why are adjustments needed to GPS? ==

A good question was raised above: if synchronization to GPS is not due to the [[Theory of Relativity]], then what is it due to?

And the answer is simply this: [[quantum mechanics]]. There are fundamental uncertainties, and those uncertainties will lead to clock differences. Otherwise a [[perpetual motion machine]] would be possible. It isn't.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:50, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:Well, this is progress indeed. Could you please provide references to support the contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects?

:Also, as an aside, how do you say that fundamental uncertainties described by quantum mechanics relate to the impossibility of a perpetual motion machine? Not sure I follow you there. --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 23:36, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

::It's basic logic. Unless someone denies [[quantum mechanics]] and the fundamental uncertainties it describes -- and many [[Relativists]] do deny it -- then synchronization will be required as a logical result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:58, 11 April 2012 (EDT)

:::Do you have any references? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:04, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

::::I haven't looked ... nor is it necessary to. I wouldn't look for references to confirm any logical statement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

:::::Really? Is it fair to say then that this contention that the synchronization is required as a result of quantum mechanical effects is not something that you have read about but rather something that youn yourself concluded from your own knowledge of quantum mechanics and GPS systems? --[[User:JeromeKJ|JeromeKJ]] 00:21, 12 April 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T04:04:01Z

JeromeKJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */

Talk:Theory of relativity

2012-04-12T03:36:49Z

JeromeKJ: /* Why are adjustments needed to GPS? */