Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Criticism

2011-11-28T04:51:55Z

JimmyRa: pros and cons of the matter

'''Criticism''' is the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or [[art]]istic work, [[music]]al performance, art exhibit or dramatic production. It can be used as a critical comment, article, or essay.

Inappropriate or baseless criticism can be a characteristic of [[liberal style]].

Appropriate criticism, is on the other hand, a tool with which conservatives learn and improve themselves. One of the greatest Christian virtues, that atheists often lack, is the humility to make good use of substantive criticism.

[[Category:Dictionary]]

Agnosticism

2011-11-09T05:22:57Z

JimmyRa: common understanding

[[Image:65375.jpg|thumb|David Hume]]
'''Agnosticism''' is, in weaker forms, an affirmation of ignorance regarding the existence of [[God]], and in stronger forms, the assertion that God's existence is not capable of being known (unknowable).

The proponent of the weaker form does not make a claim to knowledge about existence, but he simply suspends from making a decision. A suspension of decision, in terms of logic, does not have a truth value, and therefore they are not making an argument. The proponent of the stronger form goes a step further and makes a claim to knowledge by saying, ''I know that the existence of God cannot be known''.

The word "agnostic" was coined in 1869 by [[T. H. Huxley]]<ref>T. H. Huxley was also an early and influential supporter of [[Darwinism]].</ref> from the [[Greek language|Greek]] roots ''a-'' not, and ''-gnostic,'' knowing; the philosopher [[Herbert Spencer]] was influential in spreading its use. One nineteenth-century saw held that "There is no god but the Unknowable, and Herbert Spencer is his prophet."<ref>London, Jack (1913), ''Martin Eden,'' [http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/MartinEden/chapter13.html Chapter 13]</ref> ]

Agnostics are often thought of as cowardly atheists, due to their wishy-washy rejection of God. Christian belief holds that those who know of [[Jesus]] but do not accept him are just as damned as those who reject him explicitly.

==Atheism and agnosticism==
Some agnostics bristle at the term ''[[atheist]]''. They say they aren't atheists, because they don't "believe that God does not exist" but rather "neither believe nor disbelieve".

Agnostics differ from regular [[Atheism|atheists]] in that they do not deny God's existence.

Many religious [[believer]]s make no distinction among [[non-believer]]s. If you're not sure that God exists, they combine the unsure and "surely not" into one lump. For these believers, an "atheist" is any [[faithless]] person who doesn't [[believe]] in God.

Among those who have not decided whether to believe in God, or to disbelieve in Him, there are two main groups:
#Those who simply haven't made a decision
#Those who declare no rational decision is possible, on the grounds that the existence of God is not knowable.

[[Bertrand Russell]] once wrote that, in describing his beliefs,
:I never know whether I should say 'Agnostic' or whether I should say 'Atheist'.... As a [[philosopher]], if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one [can] prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the [[Greek mythology|Homeric gods]].<ref>Russell, Bertrand (1947) [http://www.luminary.us/russell/atheist_agnostic.html Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?] Most online sources say "by which one prove," probably a mistake.</ref>

== Norman Geisler on Complete Agnosticism ==

[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[Norman Geisler]] wrote on complete agnosticism:
{{cquote|Complete agnosticism is self-defeating; it reduces to the self-destructing assertion that "one knows enough about reality in order to affirm that nothing can be known about reality." This statement provides within itself all that is necessary to [[falsify]] itself. For if one knows something about reality, then he surely cannot affirm in the same breath that all of reality is unknowable. And of course if one knows nothing whatsoever about reality, then he has no basis whatsoever for making a statement about reality. It will not suffice to say that his knowledge about reality is purely and completely negative, that is, a knowledge of what one cannot meaningfully affirm that something is not – that it follows that total agnosticism is self-defeating because it assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny any knowledge of reality (Geisler, Apologetics, p. 20).<ref>http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm</ref>}}

==Frequency==
[[File:Belief-god.jpg|thumb|550px|Financial Times (FT)/Harris Poll among adults in 5 countries in 2006]]
Agnosticism has become a fairly common belief system in Western culture with 14% of people in the [[United States]], 32% of people in [[France]] and 35% of people in [[Great Britain]] self-identifying as agnostics.<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131</ref>

==Agnosticism and Uncharitableness==
[[Per capita]] atheists and agnostics in the [[United States]] [[Atheism and Uncharitableness|give significantly less to charity than theists]].
== Famous Agnostics ==
*[[Bill Maher]]
*[[Larry King]]
*[[Albert Einstein]] (assumed)<ref>http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html</ref>
*[[Steve Wozniak]]

== Agnostic population and health habits ==

''For more information please see:'' [[Agnosticism, obesity and self-esteem]]

[[File:11834504 3cc3c49559.jpg|180px|right|thumbnail|Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref> Thus, it appears as if agnostics/non-religious are more prone to becoming [[obese]] than very religious individuals.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref>
 
 
(photo obtained from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/wader/11834504/ Flickr], see [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en license agreement]) ]]
According to the [[Gallup Organization]], "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious."<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>

Gallup further declares:
{{cquote|Very religious [[American]]s make healthier choices than their moderately religious and nonreligious counterparts across all four of the Healthy Behavior Index metrics, including [[smoking]], [[healthy eating]], and regular exercise. Smoking is one area of particular differentiation between the very religious and less religious Americans, with the nonreligious 85% more likely to be smokers than those who are very religious.<ref>http://www.gallup.com/poll/145379/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-Lives.aspx</ref>}}

Two of the major risk factors for becoming [[obesity|obese]] according to the [[Mayo Clinic]] are poor dietary choices and inactivity, thus it appears as if agnostics/non-religious may be more prone to becoming [[obese]] than very religious individuals.<ref>http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]
*[[Definitions of Atheist and Agnostic]]
*[[Atheist factions]]
*[[Atheism]]
*[[Apatheism]]

== External Links ==
* [http://www.greatcom.org/resources/secular_religions/ch01/default.htm Atheism, Agnosticism, and Skepticism] Synopsis of Understanding Secular Religions by [[Josh McDowell]] and Don Stewart

==References==

<References/>

[[category:religion]]
[[category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Agnosticism]]

Malaria

2011-11-09T02:43:19Z

JimmyRa: style

'''Malaria''' is a [[disease]] spread by the [[mosquito]]. It is caused by a protozoan of the Sporozoa group. There are four species of protozoan that cause malaria, the most common of which is Plasmodium vivax. The malaria parasite spends its life in two hosts, its mosquito vector and animal host.

* Malaria is a disease confined to the tropics more for socioeconomic reasons than climatologic ones<ref>[http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in the Balance]</ref>
* Denizens of tropical countries like people of Latin and African origin are often carriers. Because of the increased prevalence of malaria in these groups and lax immigration the health of Americans is being put at risk<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19412737</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/domestic/malaria-guidelines-domestic.html</ref>. Due to socialized medicine these immigrants also pose a threat to our fiscal health.

==DDT Controversy==
One very effective way to fight malaria is by using an [[insecticide]] called [[DDT]]. <ref>"Sprayed just once or twice a year on the walls of houses, this powerful repellant keeps most mosquitoes from entering; irritates those that do come in, so they don't bite; and kills any that land." [http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5456_0_6_0_C/ Pro-malaria forces resurface at WHO] - Paul Driessen - May 15, 2007 - [[Accuracy in Media]] </ref>
Unfortunately for sub-Saharan Africans and some Asians, the U.S. ban on DDT has made this cheap (though [[teratogenic]]) chemical<ref>[http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ddt.htm Toxicology Network]</ref> very difficult to obtain. This helped lead to a renewed [[malaria epidemic]], and more than one million people die of malaria every year.

There is a controversy over malaria eradication. While most Americans are in favor of relieving third-world people of the scourge of preventable disease, some prominent Westerners oppose anything that would lead to increases in population (see [[population control]]).
*[[Club of Rome]] founder [[Alexander King]] said, "My chief quarrel with DDT in [[hindsight]] is that it greatly added to the population problem."
*Oceanographer [[Jacques Cousteau]] told Novelle Observateur, "In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people a day." [http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5456_0_6_0_C/]

Malaria is transmitted by the Anopheles mosquito.

==Eradication efforts==
Malaria was eradicated from the United States in 1951, and in 1955 the [[World Health Organization]] stated that it would eradicate malaria worldwide in an effort similar to the eradication of [[smallpox]] that was ongoing at the time. The eradication efforts were partially successful, particularly on the Indian subcontinent, but areas such as sub-Saharan Africa were ignored. This poor organization combined with lack of funding by donor countries and the evolution of mosquitos to become resistant to many insecticides led to an abandonment of the eradication effort. In 2005 the [[Bill Gates|Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]] announced that it would be donate $258 million to malaria research to compliment President Bush's Presidential Malaria Initiative of 1.2 billion over 5 years. The goal of these initiative is to achieve the worldwide eradication of malaria, which kills approximately 1 child every 30 seconds, through the use of vaccines, mosquito control, insecticide impregnated bednets, and new anti-malarial drugs.<ref>http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Diseases/Malaria/Announcements/Announce-071007.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.pmi.org</ref>

The [[deforestation]] of the [[Amazon basin]] may also deliver disease. The culverts along new roads will provide [[spawn|spawning]] grounds for [[mosquitoes]], and allow visitors to bring malaria to isolated areas.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19276850 New roads in the Amazon may also deliver disease]</ref>

==Malaria Symptoms==
Symptoms of Malaria include weakness, high fevers, shaking chills, pains such as muscle aches & head ache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea with blood in stools, Dizziness and abdominal cramps, enlargement of the spleen and anaemia<ref>http://www.symptomsofmalaria.net/</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]
*[[Fred Soper]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Diseases]]

Malaria

2011-11-09T02:41:27Z

JimmyRa: disease prevalence and immigration

'''Malaria''' is a [[disease]] spread by the [[mosquito]]. It is caused by a protozoan of the Sporozoa group. There are four species of protozoan that cause malaria, the most common of which is Plasmodium vivax. The malaria parasite spends its life in two hosts, its mosquito vector and animal host.

* Malaria is a disease confined to the tropics more for socioeconomic reasons than climatologic ones<ref>[http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in the Balance]</ref>
* Denizens of tropical countries like people of Latin and African origin are often carriers. Due to the increased prevalence of malaria in these groups and lax immigration the health of Americans is being put at risk<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19412737</ref><ref>http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/domestic/malaria-guidelines-domestic.html</ref>. Due to socialized medicine these immigrants also pose a threat to our fiscal health.

==DDT Controversy==
One very effective way to fight malaria is by using an [[insecticide]] called [[DDT]]. <ref>"Sprayed just once or twice a year on the walls of houses, this powerful repellant keeps most mosquitoes from entering; irritates those that do come in, so they don't bite; and kills any that land." [http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5456_0_6_0_C/ Pro-malaria forces resurface at WHO] - Paul Driessen - May 15, 2007 - [[Accuracy in Media]] </ref>
Unfortunately for sub-Saharan Africans and some Asians, the U.S. ban on DDT has made this cheap (though [[teratogenic]]) chemical<ref>[http://extoxnet.orst.edu/pips/ddt.htm Toxicology Network]</ref> very difficult to obtain. This helped lead to a renewed [[malaria epidemic]], and more than one million people die of malaria every year.

There is a controversy over malaria eradication. While most Americans are in favor of relieving third-world people of the scourge of preventable disease, some prominent Westerners oppose anything that would lead to increases in population (see [[population control]]).
*[[Club of Rome]] founder [[Alexander King]] said, "My chief quarrel with DDT in [[hindsight]] is that it greatly added to the population problem."
*Oceanographer [[Jacques Cousteau]] told Novelle Observateur, "In order to stabilize world populations, we must eliminate 350,000 people a day." [http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5456_0_6_0_C/]

Malaria is transmitted by the Anopheles mosquito.

==Eradication efforts==
Malaria was eradicated from the United States in 1951, and in 1955 the [[World Health Organization]] stated that it would eradicate malaria worldwide in an effort similar to the eradication of [[smallpox]] that was ongoing at the time. The eradication efforts were partially successful, particularly on the Indian subcontinent, but areas such as sub-Saharan Africa were ignored. This poor organization combined with lack of funding by donor countries and the evolution of mosquitos to become resistant to many insecticides led to an abandonment of the eradication effort. In 2005 the [[Bill Gates|Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation]] announced that it would be donate $258 million to malaria research to compliment President Bush's Presidential Malaria Initiative of 1.2 billion over 5 years. The goal of these initiative is to achieve the worldwide eradication of malaria, which kills approximately 1 child every 30 seconds, through the use of vaccines, mosquito control, insecticide impregnated bednets, and new anti-malarial drugs.<ref>http://www.gatesfoundation.org/GlobalHealth/Pri_Diseases/Malaria/Announcements/Announce-071007.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.pmi.org</ref>

The [[deforestation]] of the [[Amazon basin]] may also deliver disease. The culverts along new roads will provide [[spawn|spawning]] grounds for [[mosquitoes]], and allow visitors to bring malaria to isolated areas.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19276850 New roads in the Amazon may also deliver disease]</ref>

==Malaria Symptoms==
Symptoms of Malaria include weakness, high fevers, shaking chills, pains such as muscle aches & head ache, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea with blood in stools, Dizziness and abdominal cramps, enlargement of the spleen and anaemia<ref>http://www.symptomsofmalaria.net/</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[American Medical Association]]
*[[Doctor]]
*[[Fred Soper]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Diseases]]

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-26T04:44:23Z

JimmyRa: /* Example of what liberalism has done */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the Best of the Public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Bible Project

2011-10-26T04:43:14Z

JimmyRa: /* Example of what liberalism has done */

For older discussion, see [[Talk:Conservative Bible Project/Archive 1|here]].

== Comments ==

:As a participant in the [[Conservative Bible Project]], I was amazed at how much insight into the world and into logic was gained from nearly every verse that I translated. This was the finest educational project that I have ever done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:17, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I did very little work, but from what I did do, I would agree with Andy's comments. My learning acquired in this matter is the very real latitude there is translating from the Greek and Aramaic and how a translation can reflect on what we hope to get out of it, and the purpose or the people and "address" we envision for it[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 12:40, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
:It's one of the finest educational works of the last century, in my opinion. I wish I had registered sooner to help! [[User:AlfredB|AlfredB]] 13:10, 23 April 2010 (EDT)
I discovered just how wildly different translations can be, and learned a fair bit about books I'd read little or superficially in the past. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:20, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

I was astonished at how conservative [[St. Paul]] was in his letters. He was far to the right of modern conservatives.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:35, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

How do I go about helping out? -[[User:JasoT|JasoT]] 00:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

:Pick any verse of the Bible you like, and either improve the translation that is there or propose a translation if it has not been done yet. I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

== Why the first instance? ==

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." What is wrong with this? As a believer in Biblical inerrancy I do not see why you would change the Bible to meet with "conservative thought patterns". What is the reason for removing this? --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 16:43, 17 November 2010 (EST)

: The doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not resolve the issue of a few passages of doubtful authenticity. Your quoted passage has heavy liberal overtones, suggesting it is suspect. Scholarly analysis independently confirms that it is not authentic.

: What are the liberal overtones? First, note how often the media, movies, books and liberals love to quote that passage rather than other passages given far greater emphasis. The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. The quoted passage contradicts many other statements and facts about Jesus. Jesus did not forgive sins without repentance, but [[liberals]] like to pretend falsely that repentance is not necessary. Let's not be misled, and let's not mislead others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:41, 17 November 2010 (EST)

::The people who nailed him on the cross did not know that he was God; rather, they thought that he was a common criminal. Later, in Luke 23:47, the centurion realized that he was a righteous man, even though he still did not realize that he was God.

::The Bible should be translated according to the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew words, and it should ''not'' be translated by people who do not know God; that is why the modern Bible version are so messed up because people don't care about God's word and put in what they want, disregarding what it means. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 09:39, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::I'm a bit puzzled by this as well. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it sounds as if your standard for declaring a Bible passage to be illegitimate is that it is cited by liberals. That hardly seems sufficient. Furthermore, given that forgiveness is a major theme of the Gospels, isn't the line at least consistent with the rest of the text? --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 14:35, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::I definitely did not agree with it, but wanted to find out why. Conservatism should conform to the Bible, not the Bible to conservatism. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:16, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::: Folks, you're ducking the flaw in the passage: ''repentance is required for forgiveness''. It's [[liberal denial]] to pretend otherwise, and that's why liberals love this passage. Scholars agree it's not authentic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 18 November 2010 (EST)

:::::: Jesus forgives everyone of what they did to him on the earth; that is why there is another verse that says "Every blasphemy against the Son of man shall be forgiven" (paraphrase) This corresponds right. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 19:53, 18 November 2010 (EST)

::::::: LK, perhaps you've been misled by [[liberals]]. Jesus talked more about [[Hell]] than about [[Heaven]]. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The [[Bible]] is crystal clear about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)

You can forgive someone who wrongs you without them ever repenting of the wrong they did to you. There are more meanings to forgiveness than you think. The verse does not state that they automatically went to heaven. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 15:46, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:That was always my understanding of the passage, but even that's not really relevant to whether or not it belongs in the Bible. If you had some evidence that the verse was based on a bad translation/interpretation or was not present in the original Hebrew or Greek versions, this wouldn't be an issue. However, it appears to me (and again, correct me if I'm wrong) that you are rejecting it based on politics rather than validity or consistency. --[[User:DrewJ|DrewJ]] 16:01, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Christ did not engage in spin, LanthanumK. Forgiveness is just that. The act of our forgiving shouldn't be predicated on what the person does or does not do.....that remains the province of the Lord to judge them. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:02, 19 November 2010 (EST)

LK, if you're not going to address my points, then this discussion has become unproductive. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized that repentance is a pre-condition to forgiveness by [[God]], and Jesus repeatedly emphasized that Hell awaits those who don't repent. It's fine to forgive your neighbor, but your neighbor isn't going to obtain forgiveness from God without repentance. [[Liberal denial]] is working overtime to hide this truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:44, 19 November 2010 (EST)

:Why do you hide behind a smoke screen of conservatism? Jesus forgave them for what they did to him on the cross; since they did not repent, any sins after that would still send them to hell. Its [[conservative denial]] to pretend otherwise. --[[User:LanthanumK|L]][[User talk:LanthanumK|K]] 21:17, 19 November 2010 (EST)
:Jesus did forgive them while on the cross, but did that mean those same people were given eternal life on the spot? No. And while Jesus was forgiving them, they sat amongst themselves casting the dice for the clothes they had ripped from His body before they crucified Him. Kinda sounds like they continued with their sinning despite what Jesus did, doesn't it? I think you had better read your Bible a little closer; maybe it'll help clear the fog you've created around yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:36, 19 November 2010 (EST)
: The key thing to keep in mind here, I think, is that just because Jesus forgives you for some specific sins, that doesn't mean he forgives you for ALL your sins, and especially for sins you may commit in the future. So someone forgiven by Jesus can still go to Hell if they continue to be sinful afterwards. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 22:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

::Surely unconditional and unilateral forgiveness or withholding forgiveness until the offender repents depends on the nature of the situation. Both are reflected in the scriptures. The verses quoted below are from the New Testament of the Conservapedia Bible--a most reliable Modern English translation, done by the best of the public in over two months, much more efficiently than other translations such as the NIV currently being worked on by the elitist college professors dominated Committee on Bible Translation.
:::‘Remember always, that if another should harm you, you should rebuke him, and if he repents, you should forgive him.’ (Luke 17:3)
::That is clearly conditional on repentance. However,
:::‘Thus you should be merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, and you shall not be judged; blame not, and you shall not be blamed; forgive, and you shall be forgiven.’ (Luke 6:36-37)
::and
:::‘Because if you forgive men the wrongs they do, your heavenly Father will forgive you as well. But if you do not forgive men their wrongdoings, your Father will not forgive your wrongdoings either.’ (Matthew. 6:14-15)
::would appear to be unconditional, unless it can be shown that some verses of the scriptures take precedence over others.
::Surely Christian personal forgiveness takes place in the heart regardless of the sin or a lack of confession and repentance. Forgiveness protects us from developing grudges, becoming bitter and resentful, which may turn to hatred or anger. Forgiveness also ensures that we reflect first on our own sins and God’s gracious forgiveness toward us as undeserving sinners. It is a Christian's love for the sinner that will move him to repent.
::I am fascinated by the suggestion that the quoted phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." is false and would love to learn more about that. Who are the Scholars who agree it's not authentic and which of their publications deal with the issue?
::Surely Christ's death on behalf of mankind was so that God would not immediately call the sinner to judgment when he sinned? Without the death of Christ, God’s justice and holiness would have required the immediate judgment of the sinner. Since Jesus died for our sins, a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurs, not eternal forgiveness. That is reflected in "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." If they ‘know not what they do’ they cannot repent, but once aware of what they have done, they will have ample opportunity to do so.
::[[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 20:21, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you also ignore the fact that [[Jesus]] emphasized [[Hell]] more than [[Heaven]]. Who do you think goes to Hell, if not unrepentant sinners???

::: Your first quote from Scriptures is clear, and your second and third quotes do not contradict the first one. Moreover, the suggestion that man forgive unconditionally does not mean that [[God]] will. [[Jesus]] was crystal clear that Hell is real and crowded.

::: [[Liberal denial]] of the existence of Hell is axiomatic to [[liberal]] misinformation. As to the phrase "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do," it's simply not there in the "early and diverse manuscripts." (Philip Comfort, "Essential Guide to Bible Versions"). It's obviously a liberal distortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:46, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::: Amanda, you use a lot of words, but don't say many insightful things. I am going to provide a concise answer to your main question - why is "Father, forgive theml for they know not what they do" most likely inauthentic. First off, this verse appears only in Luke, and not any of the other gospels. More importantly, however, it doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, thus implying it was added in later, and not written by the original author. Many scholars acknowledge this, and many Bible translations do not include the verse (the United Bible Society for example does not include it in their translation). I recommend doing more research before engaging in a discussion here. --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 20:48, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Andy, I referred to a temporal postponement or suspension of judgment occurring, not eternal forgiveness. I saw no reason to mention Hell, or Heaven for that matter, in a discussion about the nature of forgiveness. I can however assure you that I am fully aware that Hell is real and crowded full of sinners. Thank you for the Philip Comfort reference. I will endeavour to acquire a copy. TeacherEd, thank you for further clarification about the authenticity of the phrase in question. I can assure you that I make the utmost efforts to research that of which I wish to learn more. Perhaps I am not the best of researchers. I once tried to search the online New American Bible but was unsuccessful. I come here to learn from a unique and unparalleled educational resource. I assumed in good faith, and with an open mind, that engaging in discussion was part of that learning process. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 21:50, 20 November 2010 (EST)

:::Amanda, since you agree that Hell is real and crowded, who do you think goes there? Not repentant sinners, but unrepentant ones. This isn't rocket science, and it is absurd for [[liberals]] to deny that unrepentant sinners go to [[Hell]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:58, 20 November 2010 (EST)

::Sorry if I was unclear. I of course meant that Hell is full of unrepentant sinners, for not to repent is the ultimate sin. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 22:06, 20 November 2010 (EST)
::: I'm glad you have come to realize the truth on this matter! For learning more about Biblical concepts, I recommend signing up for the [[Bible Lectures]] --[[User:TeacherEd|TeacherEd]] 17:31, 21 November 2010 (EST)

== Bible Project ==

Hello, I think that this Bible Project is just to pick verses out of the Bible to use them to your extent. The Bible should be read in ''context''. The meaning of a verse can be changed by the verse following it... What is the good of this project? [[User:Xeno|Xeno]] 08:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

:This project is comprehensive and does not take verses out of context. The good of it is to produce a more precise translation free of [[liberal bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 23 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello ==

I just found this from the main page and commend the site for creating this excellent resource. You have my best wishes for success.--[[User:RoyT|RoyT]] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (EDT)

== Intrigued ==

How is this project definitively different than the project which produced the NET Bible (http://net.bible.org/)?
:According to [http://bible.org/article/preface-net-bible-first-edition their 'about' page], the main motivation for that project was to produce a Bible translation with liberal copyright terms. As you can see from the article, the CBP has much broader aims than that. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 18:57, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

::The NET Bible is a helpful project, but it may suffer from some of the same weaknesses that Wikipedia has: allowing too much trivia (which can obscure learning) and not adhering to conservative principles to facilitate the most accurate result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:39, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

== User: Conservative - my criticisms of the Conservative Bible Project ==

I am not a fan of the Conservative Bible Project.

Here are a list of my objections:

1. At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Basic rules of New Testament exegesis]).

I don't think academia is the sole way of gaining knowledge. On the other hand, I don't see the project recommending various resources and having translators be required to read these resources before participating in the project. One way or another, I think people need to show they are competent before getting involved in the project. I am not saying that everyone who participated in this project was necessarily incompetent as I recall TerryH indicated he studied under someone very knowledgeable about Bible translating, but I do think the bar was set too low for people to participate.

Let me illustrate an important point:

So as not to be rude and to keep family harmony, I took a gamble one time and I had a family member who did not go to barber school cut my hair and she did an excellent job. However, when doing things like going over bridges and having dental work done, I would like to know that the people involved knew their stuff. As a Christian, the Bible is too important a book for me to take a gamble by relying on a translation done by people who don't have the requisite knowledge.

2. List of [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] to be used in the translating: I think when you translate you should use the best word available and not have a prior agenda of putting certain words in.

Plus, I am not a fan of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] page as don't buy the idea that the Western World has become more conservative over time and I have reservations about the idea that conservative words have been created at a geometric rate. I think Western culture has become more liberal and less Bible believing in the last 50 years or so for example (abortion, less people in Western Civilization believing in Bible inerrancy). I also think the webpage has examples of words which have attempted to be forced to be "conservative words" such transistor, clueless, cogent, coolant, etc. However, there are encouraging things happening now in the the Western World and the world at large such as fiscal conservatism having a higher profile, the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]], pro-life movement making some progress, etc. etc.

3. I do realize that Western Civilization has been profoundly affected by the Bible in a positive way. Yet, the name of the project, the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|"powerful conservative words"]] mentioned above and the lack of knowledge of ANE culture among some translators gives me the suspicion that personal preferences and modern American conservatism ideas are influencing the project too much rather than original intent of the Bible writers. Ancient Hebrew tribal culture and first century culture in the Mediterranean are in some ways was a lot different than modern American culture and modern Western conservative ideas.

4. I see the translation principles unnecessarily reflecting the personality/ideas/preferences of the creator of the project.

For example, one of the principles of the project is: "Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels". The apostles were upbraided over and over by Jesus for their lack of teachability plus except for Peter, the disciples did not initially believe the women's report about their visit to Jesus's tomb. Peter, however, ran to the tomb to investigate.

Here is another example: "Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

I have certainly seen my share of liberals at Conservapedia drone on and on via talk pages about nothing. On the other hand, in this instance I see overemphasis on conciseness due to the predilection of Mr. Schlafly. God has various names in the Bible and they are used to convey the various attribute/qualities of God (see: [http://bible.org/article/names-god names of God]). For example, El Shaddai:“God Almighty. I also see the lack of appreciation for the various names of God as being a symptom of not understanding and appreciating Ancient Near East (ANE) culture enough in order to provide an excellent translation. Names were very important in terms of their meaning in ANE culture and that is one reason why Abraham and Peter had their names changed for example.

5. After doing some quick searches, I found Christians on the internet criticizing the project and providing examples were the translating was done poorly for key Bible verses which are cited often by the Christian community as far as doctrine. Those verses have been fixed, but I don't think the mistakes should have happened in the first place.

6. There isn't any requirement that someone be a Christian to participate in the project. Given various non-Christians trying to pervert or censor the Bible (Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible removing all the miracle verses, Jehovah Witness versions of the Bible trying to deny the deity of Christ, etc.), I think this is a big flaw of the project. Plus, according to the Bible, Christians are given the Holy Spirit which guide them whereas non-Christians are at emnity with God and can even be demonically possessed. In addition, having a good understanding of Christian theology is helpful to understand the Bible from a big picture perspective and aids in the ability to do Bible exegesis/translating. Non-Christian translators are often going to fall short in this respect.

SUMMARY: While I do have other criticisms of the project, those are my principle criticisms. Barring the name of the project being changed and barring some radical changes to the project, I will stick with primarily using my NASB and NKJV versions of the Bible and I will not be using the Conservative Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:First time poster, long time reader. Just registered my account to post this, so go easy. :)
:I agree with what [[User:Conservative]] has posted here, but I think it tells of a bigger problem; that is to say, that the Conservapedia has kind of forgotten its ''purpose''. Was this site not meant to be the "Wikipedia Without Liberal Bias"? A Wikipedia with quality, concise articles and a source for education and learning ''without'' the indoctrination?
:As a long-time reader, I see lots of things here that make me wince. My kids accordingly go to a private school, rather than being tutored here, partially because of these issues. Is it not time that the Conservapedia administration sit down and ask themselves some hard questions? Every organization has to do it at some point, small or large, and Conservapedia -- despite its excellent moral foundation -- is no exception.
:One of those questions is, regretfully, is... "is the Conservative Bible Project actually worth continuing?" Or even worth keeping? Does it, ultimately, do more harm than good?
:Personally, on this issue, I am with [[User:Conservative]]. I believe that the Bible, Christian ethics and morals, and Conservatism as a whole can stand on its own merits; millions and indeed billions of people worldwide agree with this simple assertion. There were conservatives before Conservapedia and if we pulled the plug today, there'd still be conservatives tomorrow. Conservatism doesn't need fixing because, simply put, it's not broken.
:But Conservapedia isn't perfect, either, and nothing is to be honest. We are all flawed copies of God's perfect image, with vices and errors all our own... that's just the Human condition. While I agree with [[User:Conservative]] on specific matter, regarding the Bible Project, I must confess that there are certain other elements of Conservapedia that I consider to be... regretable. A dark stain on an otherwise noble enterprise. I'm sure you all know what I mean.
:Without going into specifics, I can say that the number of 'attack pages' on Conservapedia -- especially those hidden in the form of the Essay namespace -- is disheartening. Once again, Christianity, Conservative values -- these things stand on their own and do not require constant reinforcement. I would like to see Main Page Right being used for something ''other'' than political grandstanding (Obama is out the next election, we all know it) or the constant promotion of the Question Evolution! campaign... instead, I'd like to see interesting historical events. Points of interest, like, the work of Robert Oppenheimer and how his work harnessing the atom created the greatest peacekeeping tool the Earth has ever seen. I'd like to read about alternate takes on the Theory of Relativity without it being linked to ''moral'' relativity. There's no link there other than the name. Call it the Hand of God Theory if you want, the bottom line is, no matter how accurate or inaccurate it is its ''name'' has no bearing on anything. I'd like to see pieces on dark-ages metalwork, on the Apollo programme, on the first man in space, on the Roman Empire.
:I'd like to see a positive spin on ''everything'' we do. We're not here to call names, insult people of other faiths and beliefs (or to push an agenda)... like the wise men used to say back in the day, "Just the facts, ma'am".
:I believe that facts, not rhetoric, not insults, not 'satires', are what Conservapedia needs. Just the facts, nothing more, nothing less. If that means we have to, say, accept that certain individuals who are well liked held Liberal views -- then that's fine. They are mortal men, flawed and weak as the rest of us, and they are not perfect. Rather than belittle and insult Liberals, why don't we try and be a guiding force for ''good'' - to be a shining, unfailing example of professionalism, and demonstrate the value of Conservative values. Hard work gives good results, my dad always used to say, and that's what I believe we should demonstrate at every opportunity.
:This is, I believe, the way forward for Conservapedia. Tone down the rhetoric, encourage tolerance and diversity, remove all of the inflammatory and hyperbolic articles, return to our roots... that of teaching and learning, knowledge and the persuit of knowledge, humility and love, tolerance and peace. Focus on history, art, science, culture, religion (''all'' religions), and let the merits of our work bear the fruits that are due to us.
:In summary, instead of constantly saying how we are better than Liberals, we should ''show'' them we are better... through our courage in setting a bold, bright, shining example.
:
: -- L.Hill
::::L.Hill, thanks for agreeing with me on some points. Second, Solomon said there is a time for everything under the sun and I do think satire has a place in a project like Conservapedia which is part news (front page), part encyclopedia and part essays. Third, I do think that evolutionism is one of the most pernicious ideologies in the Western World and efforts to combat it are noteworthy. Next, I think America and Europe are going to soon have to pay for their past financial folly in terms of the debts they have accrued. With the resulting greater scarcity of resources, I think this will cause more partisan bickering and not less and Greece rioting is a harbinger of things to come in many parts of the world. I do know that the revival associated with [[John Wesley]] avoided revolution in England and I am hoping something similar happens in the West as it will avoid a lot of unnecessary turmoil and violence. Lastly, sometimes criticism is necessary and there is no way to put a positive spin on it. While optimism has its place, constructive criticism and satire have their place as well. Being a Christian, I do have an optimistic view of life as I read the book of Revelation and it has a happy ending. Plus, I do think that adversity builds character. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:39, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::It was not a problem at all, and call me Lauren. :) --[[User:LHill|LHill]] 11:24, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

I agree with Conservative that there is a place for satire on Conservapedia, especially in essay space. He makes good points about the Bible project, though it could be an interesting endeavor if someone with knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek. I say it should be on hiatus until someone knowledgeable comes along. Conservative makes some really good points here, and I am optimistic about Revelation as well.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 09:48, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

== Reply to the above criticisms ==

The above criticisms are presented and argued well. But they overlook some key facts:

*[[professor values]] increasingly control modern translations of the [[Bible]], and those translations are predictably distorting the meaning for liberal purposes
*as in many other areas (such as [[public schools]] v. [[homeschooling]]), the [[best of the public]] is the best counterweight to [[atheistic]] influence
*the [[Conservative Bible Project]] has already yielded much benefit, as in uncovering the pro-[[abortion]] slant of the [[NIV]] (see [[Feminist Bible]])
*an online approach to learning the Bible is essential because young people do not read books, including the Bible, as much anymore
*new [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative linguistic insights]] are appearing weekly, and only the Conservative Bible Project is going to make use of them to uncover the profound original intent in some biblical verses

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] addresses the above five issues, and addresses them well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:31, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, I clearly indicated that academia is not the only way to learn or show you are knowledgeable. I have no problem with the best of the public working on a Bible translating project, but they need to actually show they are the best before working on the project through showing they have: an extensive knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, an understanding of ANE culture, an understanding of [http://www.godward.org/archives/BS%20Notes/Basic%20rules%20for%20NT%20exegesis.htm Bible exegesis/translation principles], and lastly, have an understanding of Christian theology and be a Christian. Right now, there are too many novices in terms of their knowledge and ability working on the project. There are some tasks which require a lot of knowledge to do well and Bible translation is one of them. Employers hire people without academic credentials if they have the skills/knowledge, but they don't hire people off the street unless they are up to the job. I think the Bible is too important a book to translate poorly. Lastly, I raised some legitimate points that you avoided addressing. Unless the project is radically revamped on how it is done, I think it should be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:49, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:The first of the well-presented points is: ''At a bare minimum translating the Bible well requires a strong knowledge of Hebrew/Greek, a knowledge of Ancient Near East (ANE) culture (cultural context which affects how language is used and thus how words should be translated - tribal culture of 12 tribes of Israel, idioms, etc.) and exegetical principles (see: Basic rules of New Testament exegesis). '' I entirely agree with this point - and sadly, I haven't yet met a contributor to this project who knows more than the most basic Greek. And the lack of such knowledge can't be compensated for by good intentions! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:50, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar. Some may wince at that observation, but it's the same reason that sales of the Encyclopedia Britannica declined and Borders has gone bankrupt.

::Borders went bankrupt because of some bad business decisions on their part, not because of free (and in many cases incorrect) information that's available on the internet. Borders 1) failed to establish a online presence, instead choosing to go into partnership with Amazon, which had no (real) incentive to assist a rival bookseller in increasing sales, and they 2) failed to establish their ''own'' proprietary e-book system, unlike Amazon (Kindle) and Barnes & Noble (Nook). It's the brick-and-mortar stores that are suffering - Amazon's sales are up, but people are choosing to buy e-books instead of hard copies. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 17:22, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

The real challenge to a Bible translation today is the ever-changing English language into which the Greek/Hebrew must be translated. English terms like "peace be with you" are constantly changing their meaning and a good translation has to have enough political savvy to react to liberal and atheistic biases that creep into language. See [[liberal creep]]!

The objection to the [[Conservative Bible Project]] is like saying an engineer should not try to build a bridge unless he first becomes a master in trigonometry. That objection doesn't work, because the trigonometry is well-understood and modern challenges in building a good bridge have little to do with sine and cosine functions.

The [[CBP]] stacks up favorably against any academic translation out there. You can pick a few verses, and so will I, and I bet CBP is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:May I ask, Andy, whether you speak or read any language other than English? That would help me better understand your arguments. I know some German and French, and find that translations between these (fairly closely related) languages is not at all trivial. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::Aschlafly, You used again and again a Google search to bolster your claim that ἰδού can be translated as ''at that moment''. I've shown again and again that your Google searches were incorrect (see e.g., [[Talk:John_1-7_%28Translated%29#.28Matthew_27:51.29_At_Bible_Translation_Issues.2C_no._17.2C_you_wrote:_The_word_.22behold.22_appears_frequently_in_the_KJV_but_lacks_a_modern_equivalent._Is_there_a_strategy_for_this_dealing_with_this_concept.3F_Possibilities_include_.22rejoice.22.2C_.22observe.22.2C_.22listen.22.2C_.22note_that.22.2C_and_ignoring_it_altogether_.28which_modern_versions_often_do.29._Here.2C_you_omit_the_nuance_at_the_moment_which_you_used_in_Matthew_27:51._I_checked_a_couple_of_dictionaries_and_failed_to_find_at_the_moment_as_a_translation_of_.E1.BC.B0.CE.B4.CE.BF.CF.8D._Where_did_you_find_it.3F|here]] and [[Talk:Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Shroud_of_Turin|here]]). So, I'm utterly unconvinced that using these tools while knowing only very little Greek will get good results! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:58, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not sure how much my input is wanted here considering that this a Christian translation of the Bible and I'm a Jew... But as a Hebrew speaker I must say that I was positively impressed by the Conservative Bible Project's translation of the Old Testament. For example, as I see [[Bible Retranslation Project|here]] one of the suggestions for this new translation is to replace the word "kill" in some of the instances in which it appears with the word "murder".

:::This is most correct in my opinion. For example, "Thou shalt not kill" should really be "Thou shalt not murder". The Hebrew word in the original text which is often translated to "kill" is "Tirzakh" (תרצח). This word only refers to the act of murder, not killing in general, and in fact the Almighty sanctions several killings in the Old Testament. Based on this I get the impressions that with enough work the project's volunteers can produce an accurate translation of the Bible. [[User:Markman|Markman]] 17:34, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Thanks for the superb example, Markman! That does illustrate nicely the value in this project.

::::Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers.

::::If there are still any doubters, let's do this: pick your very best translation of the Bible, and let's compare key verses to the [[Conservative Bible Project]]. You can pick any five verses, and I'll pick any five verses, and observers can comment on which translation is better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::1 Corinthians 13 1-5
NKJV:
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.

2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

5 Does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

CBP:

1 If I could speak all the languages of men and angels but I didn't have love, I would just be making noise like a gong or cymbal.

2 And if I had the gift of prophecy and understood all mysteries and knew everything, if I had enough faith to move mountains-- Without love, I am nothing.

3 And if I gave everything I own to feed the poor, if I gave my body to be burned-- Without love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind. It doesn't envy. It doesn't boast, it isn't inflated.

5 It isn't rude or self serving. It isn't quick to anger. It doesn't focus its thoughts on wrong things.

I must admit that the CBP has a clearer, more concise wording, and fits in better with modern English. The quality of this passage of the CBP is on par with the NKJV.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:26, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Another reply to Andy Schlafly ===
Andy, you wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar."

As far as the ancient Greek and Hebrew languages being well understood, this is patently false as a blanket statement. There is some correlation between how far you go back into history and the available evidence that is available. Ancient historians more often face the challenge of having merely fragmentary evidence so their educated guesses are probabilistic in terms of their accuracy depending on the amount of available evidence. I know you have received some flack about your world history lectures as of late. I will briefly state that I read a few of your world history lectures and some of them I really enjoyed and found informative and insightful, but I regrettably must say that I found some error in your material. For example you wrote: "World history" is the true story of thought, ideas, culture, language, wars, governments, and economic systems throughout all of mankind's history. This includes billions of people over thousands of years. '''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed is part of "World history."''' This is demonstrably untrue.

For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13) [http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1026-what-was-the-book-of-jashar] Here is what the American Bible Society says; "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C.). It is excerpted twice or possibly three times in the Old Testament."[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] So you are clearly wrong about "every source is available to us". I suggest removing this statement from your world history lecture.

I have another example. This what a very conservative Orthodox Jewish site says about the identification of biblical animals: "After all, there are many biblical animals and plants whose identification is uncertain, as documented by Professor Yehuda Feliks in his Hachai Vehatzomeach Batorah."[http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_pamphlet2.html] I know the translation of certain biblical animals is more challenging because the NIV translates the word "hare" as rabbit and rabbits were not introduced into Israel into post-biblical history. Again, this comes down to knowing the ANE history/culture. In this case, a novice armed with a laptop is more apt to make a mistake because he does not understand the importance of the exegetical principle of taking into account the ANE history/culture.

Now does the above mean that we need to throw out biblical history like some radical skeptics/atheists unknowledgeable about historical investigations claim? No. And no adult lives his life demanding absolute certainty. Children in an area uninhabited by poisonous snakes might leap on their beds because they are afraid a poisonous snake (or monster) might be under their bed due to some show they watched on television, but adults have enough wisdom and experience to realize the probability of a poisonous snake being under their bed does not warrant leaping into their bed and is hard on the furniture.

Lastly, translating comes down to context and translating an ancient language from another culture adds another layer of difficulty. Unless you are knowledgeable of the words surrounding a particular word and unless you have some understanding of the ancient/history culture, you are not going to translate as well. This does not mean we have to throw out our Bibles an act like the child who demands certainty that a snake is not under his bed, but it merely means that translating the Bible involves more knowledge and there are some passages which are more challenging when it comes to translation/interpretation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:You make good points, but still the biggest obstacle is keeping up with the changing meanings in English. The source (Hebrew/Greek) is static and thoroughly studied/available. Where Bible translations fall short is in failing to recognize the [[liberal creep]] in the English.

:Addressing a prior point of yours, I share the concern that any new translation may try to change the meaning of the original. But that risk is its lowest when guided by conservative principles rather than liberal politics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:04, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::No offence, Mr Schlafly, but either the Bible is the word of God - in which case it's too important to be translated by unqualified people - or it isn't, in which case it doesn't matter what it says because it's just an old book. Until your project attracts some proper scholars I'm sticking with my KJV. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:21, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::''Because it is the Word of God'' it deserves ongoing improvements in the English language that clarify its original meaning. The KJV is great, but the English used there has been distorted by [[liberal creep]] in the 400 years since, and it doesn't benefit from [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]] that express powerful concepts better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::::So you plan to improve on the word of God? --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 01:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::As I said, the improvements are in how the Word of God is expressed in the English language - something that must be done constantly in order to keep up with the changing meanings of the modern language.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, I don't buy that argument. The Bible is the best selling book in the English language. If the most of the common words that the Bible used changed meaning that rapidly, every major Bible publisher would come out with a new version each year and there would be a demand for it. Bible Colleges would be pumping out Bible translators galore to meet the demand for their students. I personally don't feel as though I have to throw out the primary versions of the Bible that I like every year (NASB and NKJV) and look for new versions (both are very conservative translations of the Bible). It is far better for competent translators to do translations less frequently and have a quality translation. By competent translators I mean people with an excellent command of ancient Hebrew/Greek, a working knowledge of ANE history/culture, an excellent knowledge of biblical exegesis/translation principles and a good command of theology.

You really can't show me that the NASB and NKJV are liberal translations or that they are not good translations. I prefer reading a book as it faster and less strain on the eyes, but I am sure there are Bible programs which use these versions. In addition, you cannot also show me that there is a big demand for Bibles translated by novices some of whom may not be Christians. If you can show me that publishers have requested to publish the Conservative Bible Project work when it is published or show me any Bible produced by novices which sold well, I would be very surprised.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:An aside, I was wanting a conservative Bible translated by competent translators which combined the translation methodologies of word for word translation (formal equivalence) and thought for thought (dynamic equivalence) in an optimal manner, but I didn't think there was such a mixed approach translation. Due to this discussion which I endeavored to keep cordial yet adequately express my objections, I found that such a translation exist and it is the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]]. I am looking forward to examine this Bible. Andy, I hope there are no hard feelings and I did endeavor to keep the discussion cordial, but I do feel that the Bible deserves to be translated well and I don't think the approach this project is taking will produce a well translated Bible. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::I did some preliminary research of the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]] and figured if the Southern Baptists were involved in the translation, it would probably be a conservative translation. Conservapedia takes issue with the Bible and says it mistranslated Matthew 9:18 which appears to be the most serious charge. It does appear as if no major translations translated the verse the way the Holman translators did. I am happy with my NASB and NKJV versions anyways so no big deal. I heard from someone that the Holman translation didn't sell that well so I had my doubts it was a good translation anyways. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:08, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:::All modern translations of the Bible suffer from [[liberal creep]], including the Holman Bible.

:::It's important to address this issue: which matters more, keeping out pro-[[abortion]] (and other liberal) influences in modern translations, or worrying about how much expertise a Greek scholar has?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:03, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
Andy, you are setting up a false dilemma. There is no reason you can't have a readable well translated Bible by competent people who are theological conservatives. You didn't show me that the NASB or NKJV versions were in any way deficient.

In addition, I already pointed out that there were errors in the CBP translation on important verses dealing with doctrine which had to be fixed. This wouldn't have happened if all the translators were competent.

Also, you didn't show me that competent translator doesn't have to be: excellent in their knowledge of Greek/Hebrew in order to understand context, be acquainted with ANE history/culture, having a working knowledge of Christian theology, and be excellent in terms of understanding exegetical/translation principles. In fact, you conceded I made some good points about this issue (other Conservapedians did as well). Plus, you failed to address my points below about: your chess software analogy, the issue of translation software being poor and the software for the more intellectually challenging game of [[Go]] (which requires human judgement/experience and an understanding about context) being easily being beat by experienced players. Also, you didn't show me there was any significant market demand for translations translated by novices.

Next, while I was interested in the approach that the Holman people took, you posted almost instantly after me so you probably missed my new post directly above yours about the [[Holman Christian Standard Bible]].

In addition, you once said on this wiki that you hate to admit to being wrong. That is not a good characteristic to have. Solomon wrote in Proverbs: "Reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Instruct a wise man, and he will be still wiser. Teach a righteous man, and he will increase in learning. (Proverbs 9:8-9). I realize that it is human nature to be resistant to admit to being wrong, yet the Bible indicates that this humble approach is exactly the approach one should take. Pride merely gets in the way of learning/teachability. Today someone said I made a mistake in medical terminology in one of my satires. I did a little poking around the internet, saw they were right and that I made a mistake and then I gladly made the correction. When people at this wiki have made legitimate points about any of my articles, I have made changes. I would rather learn something new and make any necessary corrections. On the other hand, I do have fun oversighting my revisions to my main page right posts for style/typo issues as I was told that certain obsessive atheists get frustrated when I do this. :) Here is an clear cut example of you not wanting to admit to making a mistake: You wrote in your World History Lecture: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible."[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I showed you above that the Book of Jashar which the Bible mentions is a lost book and not available to historians. Yet, you still did not make the correction and still say in your World History lecture that '''"every source is available to us".'''

Lastly, I still suggest consulting with the Wycliffe Bible translators (who appear not to require college education but merely equivalency plus use technology in their translation), better preparing your translators and requiring that all your translators be prepared. If you don't want to do that, I still suggest deleting the CBP as their is no shortcut to excellence and the Bible should be translated excellently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:51, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I revised my above post to provide an example of a relevant point. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:34, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Addendum: I do like to be fair. You obviously are capable of coming up with great ideas. For example, the birth of a conservative alternative to Wikipedia was a fabulous idea and something the internet needed. I also like various ideas you have come up with and various articles/essays you have written. At the same time, having a resistance to admitting your wrong is a bad characteristic to have and you did admit to having this characteristic and you haven't made the correction to your World History lecture even though their is a clear cut mistake which I pointed out. Again, I do try to be fair and I am not reticent to point out people's good points which I did above. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:57, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion to Andy on proceeding forward if you wish to continue the wiki Bible translatiing project ==

Right now there are about 340 million people without the Bible in their native tongue. One of the primary organizations tackling this problem is the Wycliffe Bible translators. Wycliffe does not demand its translators be college educated. Wycliffe also uses computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. Wycliffe also offers training for their translators. Why don't you consult with Wycliffe and use some of their methodology if you insist on continuing with a wiki Bible project. Here is their website: http://www.wycliffe.org Here is their web page on training to be a translator: http://www.wycliffe.org/go/preparingtoserve/training.aspx

Many tasks require training to do well and I would suggest that if someone wants to obtain training in translation without large college bills that Wycliffe offers good training. Plus, you will help translate the Bible so more of those 340 million people will be able to read the Bible in their native language. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, there is a conservative gentleman who is hired by many organizations/businesses to speak. He helps people be more productive and effective. Here is a quote from him: "You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, '''prepare''' to win, and expect to win."[http://thinkexist.com/quotation/you_were_born_to_win-but_to_be_a_winner-you_must/260044.html] I have no problem with you expecting people to do good Bible translating, but there has to be some preparation (training process) for them. Some sales managers, put a product in their salesmen's hands, quickly push them out the door and then say "Go get'm tiger." Then they wonder why they have such a high salesmen turnover and low sales. These people fail because they did not have enough preparation. You cannot expect people to be good Bible translators unless you provide some means of preparation and require they be prepared. I suggest incorporating some of Wycliffe's methodology as they do not demand their people be college educated plus they use computer and digital technology to accomplish their translating. In many cases, if you want excellence, you cannot get around preparation. Bible translating requires some preparation and that is why the Wycliffe Bible translators prepare their Bible translators for the task of Bible translation. I would also suggest incorporating the changes to the project I gave in my initial post to you concerning this project. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
=== Chess software vs. translation software or someone merely using a browser with rudimentary knowledge of a language ===

Andy you wrote:

"The Greek and Hebrew languages are well understood and readily available to any internet user. In this electronic age a laptop and a browser are superior to (and faster than) the finest Greek/Hebrew scholar...."

Perhaps this analogy would also help persuade some of the doubters: designers of a masterful computer chess program that plays the game better than the finest chess expert in the world do not need to be good chess players themselves! It would obviously be fallacious to criticize a computerized chess program based on the level of chess-playing skills of its designers."

'''Here is an excerpt of an article from Slate:
'''

"I work at a large international organization translating speeches from French, Spanish, and Russian. When a rumor began spreading in my office that our jobs were to be "supplemented" by computer translation software, we mostly laughed it off.

Anybody who's played around with translation software knows how bad the technology can be. Everyone in my office knows the hoary classic in which "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak," translated into Russian and back, comes out "The vodka is good, but the steak is lousy." We all knew, or thought we knew, that computer translation—also known as machine translation, or MT—could never replace a human translator, with his vast cultural and linguistic experience, his ear for nuance, and his superior multilingual education. We all slept very well in the certainty of our indispensability...

The problem with translation software is context. When you hear or read a sentence, your brain refers not only to the spoken words but also to its accumulated experience. The words "con" and "pen," for example, have various meanings and can represent different parts of speech. But when you read "the con is in the pen," you know instantly that you are dealing with an incarcerated criminal—your life experience allows each word to contextualize the other. A computer can't do that because it has no frame of reference to help it match the contingent sense of "con" as criminal to the contingent sense of "pen" as jail. Short of being endowed with a knowledge base as vast as the human mind's, a computer simply cannot read context."[http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/webhead/2006/01/the_translators_blues.html]

While I have joked around a bit with translation software as far as the Chinese language at Conservapedia, I certainly don't think it is at the level of chess software. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made and the vast knowledge base of the human brain and the brains ability at relating pieces of information and putting them in the right context and making proper judgements should be harnessed to provide the best translation. Plus, it becomes even more important when you are translating an ancient text and the historical/cultural considerations also need to be taken into account.

Here is an acid test:

Can you show me a piece of software which translates ancient languages well? Can you show me a piece of translation software which is generally superior to human translators? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:41, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::Here is another example of limitations of technology when human judgment/experience and context is involved: "The game of [[Go]] is one of the most popular games in the world and is on par with games such as chess, in any of its Western or Asian variants, in terms of game theory and as an intellectual activity. It has also been argued to be the most complex of all games, with most advocates referring to the difficulty in programming the game to be played by computers and the large number of variations of play. While the strongest computer chess software has defeated top players (Deep Blue beat the world champion Garry Kasparov in 1997), the best Go programs routinely lose to talented children and consistently reach only the 1-10 kyu range of ranking. Many in the field of artificial intelligence consider Go to be a better measure of a computer's capacity for thought than chess."[http://www.amazon.it/Go-Mathematics-Frederic-P-Miller/dp/6130704380] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:12, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Good points, but ... ==

You make good points, and this is an interesting and important discussion. But it is not "a false dilemma" to be confronted with a choice between well-credentialed but liberal translators, and the less-credentialed but conservative public. After all, that is the choice made by a constitutional republic in how the nation should be run.

The NASB is a pretty good (but outdated) translation, while the NKJV has more bias. It's not difficult to find instances of bias in both. I'll take a look now and doubt it will be even 15 minutes before I can post significant examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Liberal bias in NASB (Galations 5:19):

:{| class="wikitable"
|KJV||Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
|-
|NASB||Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
|-
|}

:Also, the NASB reduced the references to the [[Devil]] by almost 50% from the [[KJV]].

:Outdated, archaic terminology in NASB: describing the unconscious state of the martyr [[Stephen]] after he was stoned in Acts 7:60: "Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, 'Lord, do not hold this sin against them!' Having said this, he '''fell asleep'''." Really??? Stephen took a nap at that point???

(will add the NKJV next)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:: Shouldn't you be looking at which version best matches the original text rather than which one sounds more conservative to you? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:18, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

::: Absolutely. And surely original text does not say that Stephen took a nap after being stoned.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::: I dunno, I don't understand Ancient Greek, but you never referenced in the original text in your criticism as to why it's wrong. Interestingly, the KJV (which you use for the CBP) also says "he fell asleep". Anyway, here's the passage:

θεὶς δὲ τὰ γόνατα ἔκραξεν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· κύριε, μὴ στήσῃς αὐτοῖς ταύτην τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ τοῦτο εἰπὼν ἐκοιμήθη.

:::: Even if it doesn't say "feel asleep", how is this an example liberal bias? --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:08, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: I didn't say it was an example of liberal bias, but the translation criticized above does sugarcoat the brutal murder of the martyr Stephen. "ἐκοιμήθη" means to die (or fall unconscious) in this context, not fall asleep.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:27, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::: "He fell asleep - This is the usual mode of describing the death of saints in the Bible. It is an expression indicating:

:::::(1) The "peacefulness" of their death, compared with the alarm of sinners;

:::::(2) The hope of a resurrection; as we retire to sleep with the hope of again awaking to the duties and enjoyments of life. See John 11:11-12; 1 Corinthians 11:30; 1 Corinthians 15:51; 1 Thessalonians 4:14; 1 Thessalonians 5:10; Matthew 9:24." [http://bible.cc/acts/7-60.htm Source]

::::: This shows the limitations of relying on machines and dictionaries for translation. One needs to understand history, the language and the culture in which these texts were written in order to fully understand what is being said. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:20, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::: The "language and the culture" for the English is ''today''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

::::::: Since you're translating something written nearly 2000 years ago in Greek/Hebrew then you should understand the language and culture of that time ''as well''. Otherwise you end up distorting or leaving out important things, like that "falling sleep" is how the death of saints in described in the Bible for the reasons mentioned above. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 00:37, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::::: "Falling asleep" is a term in English. It was not used 2000 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::::: *sigh* Forget it.--[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 01:19, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
:NKJV does not even use the oldest Greek texts (Nestle-Aland 26th edition Greek Bible), because they were discovered after the writing of the KJV.

:Archaic text in NKJV (Mathew 28:4): "And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men."

(will add more examples ...)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:09, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

: Actually, I could not easily find examples of bias in the NKJV. But it seems to present the [[Essay:Adulteress Story|Adulteress Story]] without a cautionary footnote that the passage was probably inserted later by a liberal. Other than that, I must admit the NKJV is a pretty good translation, but will become outdated in its English over time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

Andy, if I am to believe the NASB reduced the references to the devil by 50%, I am going to have to see some evidence and have more specifics. For example, the devil goes my more than one name in the Bible such as Satan, Lucifer, Prince of the power of the air, accuser of our brethren, adversary, father of lies, etc. etc. Again, I do know that ANE culture place a greater importance on names. Perhaps, having a diverse set of names to reflect the devil's attributes is a reflection of this. Again, one of my criticisms of this project is that some of its participants need to be more knowledgeable enough about ANE culture. I have also maintained that good translators take into account ANE history/cultural considerations when translating in order to impart the original intent of the biblical authors into the translated document.

Second, can you name 3 early church fathers or 3 prominent people in the early church who voiced the opinion that the adulteress story was fake. I do know that: "Most Greek manuscripts contain this passage. It also is in early translations such as the Bohairic Coptic Version, the Syriac Palestinian Version and the Ethiopic Version, all of which date from the second to the sixth centuries. It is clearly the reading of the majority of the Old Latin manuscripts and Jerome's Latin Vulgate. The passage has patristic support: Didascalia (third century), Ambrosiaster (forth century), Ambrose (forth century), the Apostolic Constitutions (which are the largest liturgical collections of writings from Antioch Syria in about 380 AD), Jerome (420 AD), and Augustine (430 AD)."[http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_joh7_53-8_11.html] Jerome was an early church father who wrote most of the Latin Vulgate. '''Question: Was St. Jerome a liberal?''' '''I think you are going to find a hostile audience to the proposition the Jerome was a liberal. ''' Also, "Eusebius indicates that Papias told a similar story of a woman accused before Jesus of many sins. The story also seems to be alluded to in the Apostolic Constitutions, and in the Syrian Didascalia of the third century, which tells bishops to deal with repentant sinners "as he also did with her who had sinned, when the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed." (See Morris' commentary on John, 883, and Beasley-Murray's commentary on John, 143.)"[http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html]

Fourth, you seem to think the KJV is a conservative Bible translation. Yet, it has the adulteress story in John. '''Is the KJV a liberal Bible translation? I think you are going to find it to be a hard sell to convince people that the KJV is a so called liberal Bible translation.'''

Fifth, I really don't know if the NASB was warranted in their decision as far as Galations 5 at this point. I do know that the Young's literal translation, which is a strictly literal translation, has this as the translation: "And manifest also are the works of the flesh, which are: Adultery, whoredom, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, strifes, emulations, wraths, rivalries, dissensions, sects, envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revellings, and such like, of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that those doing such things the reign of God shall not inherit." You may be making a legitimate complaint about this passage being translated poorly or less than ideally translated by the NASB.

Sixth, you say this is an interesting discussion yet you really don't adequately address my important points. So I don't believe it is much of a discussion. Therefore, I am bowing out of this discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:41, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

:I'd like to address any specific points. I have an open mind about this. In response to your points above, liberal deception is not always obvious. Jerome and others (and the KJV) did not have all the evidence and political experience that we have today. Jerome was an expert scholar, rather than an expert at recognizing deception.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:58, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::Andy, I have endeavored to keep this discussion civil. I have also gone the extra mile and pointed out your accomplishments at this wiki (having the great idea of a conservative wiki, writing some good articles and essays at this wiki, having some good ideas as far as how this wiki is operated). I also said that I read a few of your World History lectures and found some interesting information and liked them. However, you are not convincing me that you have a strong propensity to be open to admitting error. For example, why do you still have this sentence in your first World History lecture?: "'''Every source is available to us''', including the Bible. '''Everything mankind has ever''' written, invented, observed, conquered and destroyed '''is part of "World history.'''""[http://conservapedia.com/World_History_Lecture_One] I clearly showed you that our knowledge of history is partial and that all sources are not available to us. For example I said this: "For example, here is a case of a historical source not being available to us. the Bible says, "Is it not written in the book of Jashar?"(Joshua 10:13)." I also cited this: "The Book of Jashar is one of the lost source books of early Israelite poetry from the Amarna Age (15th and 14th centuries B.C"[http://record.americanbible.org/content/bible-qa/book-jashar-missing-book] Yet, this sentence in your World History lecture stubbornly remains. Therefore, I am concluding that you do have some resistance to admitting error. I am not saying you do not have some openness to hearing others, but I do see evidence that you dislike admitting error. A good start in changing this trait would be to fix this error in your World History lecture. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:25, 25 October 2011 (EDT)

==Example of what liberalism has done==
John 3:16 (KJV) ''"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."'' Liberal version: ''The Message'' (1983): ''"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."'' Removed from ''The Message'' is "eternal life". Why? Could it have been done by people who think they're smarter than the original Biblical writers? Could it have been done by people who think there's no such thing as God? Could it have been done by people who think Jesus is just a fairy tale? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

:Excellent example. And a strong counterweight is needed against such liberal bias, or liberals will distort everything in the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::Karajou, even if Andy were to somehow convince me that all other translations of the Bible were liberal and/or have errors, that still wouldn't negate the fact that the CBP needs to make some significant changes on how it is done and step up its game in terms of scholarship (you don't have to be an academic to display scholarship). It is apparent to me that Andy is not willing to make this commitment despite the good points I have made. And Andy does admit that I made some good points plus there are other conservative Conservapedians who agree with me. I still hold to the position that the CBP needs to make significant changes and step up its game or be deleted. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:38, 25 October 2011 (EDT)
::::Should the best of the public vote on it then? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 00:43, 26 October 2011 (EDT)

Tulip

2011-10-14T04:09:05Z

JimmyRa: some history

A '''tulip''' is a [[flowering plant]] of the [[lily]] [[baraminology|family]]. It grows from a [[bulb]] and produces [[flower]]s and [[leaf|leaves]] in the [[spring]]. It is a popular [[garden]] plant; the bulbs are planted in the [[autumn]]. Tulips were first cultivated in the area of the Ottoman empire (modern day Turkey). There they were considered an important symbol of virginal purity and given to new brides upon their betrothal. From there Tulips spread to Europe, were the incredible beauty with which God endowed them set off a speculative fury in Holland known as tulipomania.
==See also==
For the abbreviation '''TULIP,''' see [[Calvinism]].
==References==
*[http://www.theflowerexpert.com/content/aboutflowers/exoticflowers/tulips Tulips]
[[Category:Plants]]

Homosexuality and alcoholism

2011-10-13T04:58:19Z

JimmyRa: health effects

'''Homosexuality and alcoholism''' are both addictions.<ref>If sexual experiences happen repeatedly with members of the same sex, a homosexual addiction will result. Sex will no longer be a matter of choice and the will, but will become a "must have at any cost" obsession. [http://www.new-life.net/sex2.htm How Sexual Experiences Become Addictions]</ref><ref>Prolonged, heavy use of alcohol can lead to addiction (alcoholism). Sudden cessation of long term, extensive alcohol intake is likely to produce withdrawal symptoms, including severe anxiety, tremors, hallucinations and convulsions. [http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/drug_guide/Alcohol Alcohol Addiction | Effects of Alcohol | Facts about Alcohol]</ref>
Each [[addiction]] has its own twelve-step group to help addicts who are "powerless" to stop (see [[Alcoholics Anonymous]]). Professionals treat both addictions as [[disease]]s.

* Fundamentally, alcoholism is a health problem — a physical and emotional disease — rather than a question of too little willpower or of moral weakness.<ref> [http://www.aasanjose.org/new_development/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=75&Itemid=59 Alcoholic in your life? - Alcoholics Anonymous in Santa Clara County, California]
</ref>

*Though alcoholism is well known to cause health problems it's effects are positively benign compared to the health problems typically caused by a homosexual lifestyle.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/1950/60/5060606</ref> STD's are rampant in the homosexual community and drug use [[Homosexuality and Illegal Drug Use|is very common]]. Lives of homosexuals tend to be nasty, brutish, and short.

==Notes==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.ha-fs.org/ Homosexuals Anonymous]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Sexual discrimination

2011-06-28T00:57:13Z

JimmyRa: /* Salary Differences */

'''Sexual discrimination''' is maltreatment or disparagement of one sex by the other, or of special preferential treatment given to one.

== Allegations of Sexism against Men ==

=== Women-only Accommodations ===

"Women-only coaches" are becoming increasingly common in large cities in Japan, Brazil, and the Philippines. While proponents of these coaches say they are an effort to prevent rampant sexual harassment on trains <ref>64% of Tokyo women stated that they had been groped in trains.[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article394630.ece]</ref><ref>http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2750</ref>, others believe that this [[segregation]] is an instance of sexism against men. Similar female-only accommodations are institutionalized in Muslim countries such as [[Saudi Arabia]].

In Britain there are ''women-only library sessions'', ''women-only swimming sessions'' in public swimming baths and ''women-only gyms''. Feminists do not protest against any of these women-only spaces, but they have campaigned to remove ''men-only spaces'' such as ''gentlemen's clubs'' in London, and ''working men's clubs'' elsewhere in Britain. Feminists have also campaigned to allow women join ''sports clubs'' that were previously men-only such as ''golf clubs'' and ''golf tournaments'' ''(but not to allow men into the equivalent female-only clubs)''.

In some countries, if a rest room for women in department stores or movie houses etc. are full, a woman is allowed to use one for men. ''But not vice versa.''

=== Affirmative Action ===

Some allege that [[affirmative action]] is sexism against men, because it gives advantages to equally or even less qualified women. They point to:

Norwegian Companies: The 500 companies listed on Norway's stock exchange face being shut down unless they install at least 40% women on their boards over the next two years. <ref>http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1682083,00.html</ref>

Russian Police set up Women-only Unit: Mikhail Tsukruk, the police chief in the southern Russian city of Volgograd, has set up the first women-only traffic police unit saying that 'research' [no details given] showed that women are less inclined to accept bribes. <ref>http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9849</ref>

=== Salary Differences ===

Some point to certain purported salary differences between men and women as evidence of sexism, particularly in the corporate world. Using the slogan "equal pay for equal work", agitators claim that many women in the same positions as men earn less. However, these allegations fail to accurately compare the actual work (i.e. value added to the company) done by the individuals in question. Since men and women naturally have different strengths and weaknesses, it's quite natural in certain jobs for men to perform better (and vice-versa - in certain activities women are better).

The fact that woman pursue family life and other non-monetary activities also contribute to a false sense of inequality when equity is determined by average earnings. Woman are often fulfilled and fully equal when performing their traditional duties within the home.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Affirmative Action]]
[[Category:Feminism]]

Sexual discrimination

2011-06-28T00:56:32Z

JimmyRa: /* Salary Differences */

'''Sexual discrimination''' is maltreatment or disparagement of one sex by the other, or of special preferential treatment given to one.

== Allegations of Sexism against Men ==

=== Women-only Accommodations ===

"Women-only coaches" are becoming increasingly common in large cities in Japan, Brazil, and the Philippines. While proponents of these coaches say they are an effort to prevent rampant sexual harassment on trains <ref>64% of Tokyo women stated that they had been groped in trains.[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article394630.ece]</ref><ref>http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=2750</ref>, others believe that this [[segregation]] is an instance of sexism against men. Similar female-only accommodations are institutionalized in Muslim countries such as [[Saudi Arabia]].

In Britain there are ''women-only library sessions'', ''women-only swimming sessions'' in public swimming baths and ''women-only gyms''. Feminists do not protest against any of these women-only spaces, but they have campaigned to remove ''men-only spaces'' such as ''gentlemen's clubs'' in London, and ''working men's clubs'' elsewhere in Britain. Feminists have also campaigned to allow women join ''sports clubs'' that were previously men-only such as ''golf clubs'' and ''golf tournaments'' ''(but not to allow men into the equivalent female-only clubs)''.

In some countries, if a rest room for women in department stores or movie houses etc. are full, a woman is allowed to use one for men. ''But not vice versa.''

=== Affirmative Action ===

Some allege that [[affirmative action]] is sexism against men, because it gives advantages to equally or even less qualified women. They point to:

Norwegian Companies: The 500 companies listed on Norway's stock exchange face being shut down unless they install at least 40% women on their boards over the next two years. <ref>http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,16781,1682083,00.html</ref>

Russian Police set up Women-only Unit: Mikhail Tsukruk, the police chief in the southern Russian city of Volgograd, has set up the first women-only traffic police unit saying that 'research' [no details given] showed that women are less inclined to accept bribes. <ref>http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=9849</ref>

=== Salary Differences ===

Some point to certain purported salary differences between men and women as evidence of sexism, particularly in the corporate world. Using the slogan "equal pay for equal work", agitators claim that many women in the same positions as men earn less. However, these allegations fail to accurately compare the actual work (i.e. value added to the company) done by the individuals in question. Since men and women naturally have different strengths and weaknesses, it's quite natural in certain jobs for men to perform better (and vice-versa - in certain activities women are better).

The fact that woman pursue family life and other non-monetary activities also contribute to a false sense of inequality when equity is determined by average earnings. Woman are often fulfilled and fully equal when preforming their traditional duties within the home.

==References==
<references/>

[[category:sociology]]
[[Category:Affirmative Action]]
[[Category:Feminism]]

Comprehension gap

2011-06-28T00:49:32Z

JimmyRa: added info on liberals

A '''comprehension gap''' is the length of time between a correct assessment and incorrect knowledge or blatantly wrong belief(s).

For example, a person believes there is nothing wrong when it comes to [[abortion]]. Later in [[life]], the person starts to feel partial birth abortion is wrong. Over the years, this person will become involved with [[religion]]. He is told abortion is wrong and he starts to believe it. Then he has a full conversion when he feels abortion is the evil murder of innocent children in the womb. The duration between 'nothing wrong when it comes to abortion' and the correct assessment 'abortion is evil murder', is called the comprehension gap.

Liberals have been shown to have a higher than average comprehension gap, this is evident in many of their ideas, like the legalization of drugs. After the effect of these policies is demonstrated liberals will often abandon their position.

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Pseudoarchaeology

2011-06-11T19:54:02Z

JimmyRa: added information on evolution and Pseudoarchaeology

'''Pseudoarchaeology''' refers to [[archaeology]] outside of the mainstream academic archaeological community. Pseudoarchaeological theories may include the idea that extra-terrestrial interfered in the development of humanity (such as in the book [[Chariots of the Gods?]]) or less fantastic but still not credible ideas (such as the belief that the hills of [[Bosnia]] are in fact pyramids). A notable example of pseudoarchaeology would be the Ahnenerbe, a [[Nazi]] institution meant to prove the roots of the "Aryan race." Evolutionists have also engaged in Pseudoarchaeology, for instance when they created the [[Piltdown Man]] hoax.

What defines Pseudoarchaelogy would be the lack of adherence to the scientific method as well as ideological goals interfering with any findings. As an example, the Ahnenerbe had for a goal to prove that the Aryans used to rule the world. This as well as their lack of scientific background resulted in their arbitrary interpretations of ancient markings to pretty much mean whatever they felt like. To this day, there has yet to be any evidence of an Aryan race ruling the world<ref>http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,747665,00.html</ref>
 An important characteristic of pseuodoarchaelogy is that the study of legitimate archaeological sites, but in an un-archaeological fashion. Sites such as Stonehenge, in England,<ref>http://www.vortexmaps.com/htmla/hengetor.htm</ref> and Teotihuacan<ref>Fagan, Garrett G. (2006). Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. New York: Routledge. 978-0415305938</ref> in present-day Mexico are prone to ideologues, New Agers, and the like looking to justify their dubious theories.
==See also==
* [[Archaeology]]
* [[Pseudoscience]]
==External links==
*http://www.archaeology.org/0603/abstracts/nazis.html
*[http://www.mysteriousarizona.com/coveypaper2.html An example of pseudoarchaeology, claiming such things as direct Hebrew and Chinese influence over Meso-American civilizations]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Archaeology]]

Classroom prayer

2011-06-11T04:28:03Z

JimmyRa: we don't want to water down the language too much, the facts should be stated clearly

'''Classroom prayer''' is teacher-led, state-sanctioned [[prayer]] in schools. The Supreme Court case [[Engel v. Vitale]] (1962) banned classroom prayer from [[public schools]] in the [[United States]], and in Florida in 2009 school administrators were prosecuted for praying at a school-affiliated, adult-only event.<ref>http://www.baptistmessenger.com/story/30D869A1C3EB8104A87DD4CA8659031D . They were ultimately acquitted.</ref> Classroom prayer has been banned in [[government]] schools in most other Western European countries also.

Most private schools, even religious schools, imitate government and do not allow classroom prayer. Some Christian institutions, including many Catholic schools, do allow teacher-led prayers at special school events, such as school assemblies, school sporting events, and graduation exercises, but rarely allow it in the classroom. Some language teachers at religious schools teach the students the Lord's Prayer or the Hail Mary in the respective language(s) and begin each day's instruction with one or the other.

Christian [[homeschooling]] classes, in contrast, often begin with a classroom prayer and the students benefit enormously from it.

Some private or religious schools hold religious assemblies, including religious services such as the Roman Catholic Mass, that permit prayer outside of the classroom, away from intellectual pursuits.

Prayer was encouraged, allowed and practiced in [[U.S.]] public schools from colonial times until 1962, when the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' banned school prayer, citing the [[First Amendment]]'s prohibition on the government respecting an establishment of religion a precedent for its ruling. The UK has a little-observed legal requirement that all pupils "shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship," except where the parent of the pupil has asked for the pupil to be excused from this.<ref> [http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980031_en_7#pt2-ch6 School Standards and Framework Act 1998 part 2 chapter 6]</ref>

[[Atheistic]] groups herald this as a great victory for their ideology, as since 1962 U.S. taxpayers have been compelled to fund and support a nominally-secular but effectively-atheistic position for the 90% of [[American]] students who attend [[public school]]. Supporters of the decision claim that there is a "separation of church and state" in the [[U.S. Constitution]], echoing the phrase used by Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists,<ref>http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html</ref> though no such phrase exists in the actual text of the [[First Amendment]] (the relevant part of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]).

It has been demonstrated that when classroom prayer is allowed, a corresponding drop in crime, teen pregnancy, drug use, and obesity occurs, further bolstering the argument to allow prayer in the classroom. <ref>http://www.helium.com/items/1792560-the-impact-of-banning-prayer-from-the-public-school-classroom </ref>

== Examples of wrongful suppression of student prayer ==
Since 1962, and primarily since the 1990s, many students across the U.S. who engaged in prayer have found themselves targeted by overzealous teachers and school administrators.

In 1994, at Waring Elementary School in St. Louis, Missouri, fourth-grader Raymond Raines was sent to the principal's office after a teacher spotted him bowing his head in prayer before lunch. Raymond was eventually separated from his classmates and given a week's detention for his continued prayers.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34772</ref> His mother, Ellen Raines, eventually withdrew Raymond from the school and enrolled him in a private school where he could practice his faith without persecution.<ref>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E4DC1139F933A25751C1A962958260</ref>

On May 5, 1995, U.S. district judge Samuel Kent issued a ruling against students uttering the name of Jesus during prayer at a high school graduation in Texas, stating, "And make no mistake, the court is going to have a United States marshal in attendance at the graduation. If any student offends this court, that student will be summarily arrested and will face up to six months incarceration in the Galveston County Jail for contempt of court. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding about this better think again. Anyone who violates these orders, no kidding, is going to wish that he or she had died as a child when this court gets through with it."<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56479</ref>

On January 15, 2002, in Wilton, New York, kindergartener Kayla Broadus was stopped by her teacher from saying the "God is great, God is good" table prayer out loud with her friends before snack time.<ref>http://www.cjonline.com/stories/041302/usw_nation.shtml</ref> The Saratoga Springs City school district sided with the teacher, claiming the prayer was a violation of the supposedly constitutional "separation of church and state." Kayla's parents filed a lawsuit against the school and received a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge David Hurd on February 5, 2002, against the school's suppression of Kayla's prayer. On February 8, 2002, Judge Hurd issued a preliminary injunction against the school ordering it to allow Kayla to say grace with her friends. Following the injunction, the school decided to settle the embarrassing case, saying that Kayla could pray without inviting her friends to join her (as this was inexplicably deemed "disruptive").

From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. Larue did, according to her deposition. In that sworn statement, Larue said she briefly informed Summa of a parental complaint about the Bible study, and Summa then instructed her to end the practice, citing fear over 'separation of church and state.' Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess, according to the deposition."<ref>http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/</ref>

In 2005, a New Jersey award-winning high school football coach, Marcus Borden, was ordered by his intolerant school district not to bow his head or "take a knee" during any player-initiated prayers. Borden resigned from coaching in October over the issue. Borden later sued and a trial judge ruled in his favor, but school officials and their allies appealed to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In a unanimous judgement from 2008, the court overturned the ruling of the trial judge, determining that Borden's actions would be construed by a neutral observer as promoting religion. In response, the superintendent of schools was "very pleased" with the ruling.<ref>http://ebs.gmnews.com/news/2008-04-17/Front_Page/005.html</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[category:Establishment Clause]]

Chemical weapon

2011-06-10T22:59:32Z

JimmyRa: added info

A '''Chemical weapon''' is a weapon, usually in gas or liquid form, that releases toxic chemicals when exploded. The most well known chemical weapon, Mustard Gas, was used extensively during [[World War Two]]. Other types include sarin gas, nerve gas, VX, and BZ.<ref>http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/cw/cwindex.html</ref> Gas masks and other protective gear exists to protect against chemical weapons.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Weapons]]

Talk:Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T15:40:06Z

JimmyRa: /* as you wish */

== Kicking some idea's around ==

I hope with this essay to create a place to kick some ideas around about promoting our values. This fight is too important for us to discard any tools at our disposal. I hope this essay will be like an inventory of our workshop. Hopefully someone will see a tool on the list and build something great for our movement with it.{{unsigned|JimmyRa}}
===as you wish===
''Christian conservatives are not always the most computer literate segment of society. We should do more outreach programs to help people get online. For instance going to church's and teaching people how to edit Conservapedia would be great. ''
 I disagree with that. Many Christian Conservatives are very computer literate. Take Ed Poor, for example, a prolific programmer and a former administrator at wikipedia.
 ''We should invite atheists and liberals to come get demolished in debates here on Conservapedia. ''
Atheists and liberals already come here in droves.
 
''We could to do more to go after media companies who promote liberal and antiChristian values. ''
We don't do enough of that? I think the Conservative world already spends plenty of time critiquing the media.
 Also, when you make assertions such as ''Liberalism and atheism have over the last few centuries done tremendous harm to humanity'', you'll have to prepare for [[tu quoque]] arguments from the opposition. It's very easy to cite atheists and atheistic policies as a source of human misery, but you should know that liberals and atheist have an equally lengthy list. To counter such arguments, you'd have to either establish a difference between your brand of Christianity from, say, Torquemada's, or attempt to justify any atrocities they accuse you of (I'd pick the first one). You could also deny some of their accusations, but that may not sit well with people. As an example, denying the various blood libels, or more particularly the ones motivated by purported miracles, would do no credit to your movement. Let me be clear that the things you will be accused of will likely have nothing to do with you, and that you would never commit such acts in good conscience. I am merely noting that an argument such as that will attract similar arguments against you. 
My great solution for Conservapedia would be to post liberal assertions and refute them. That way, whenever someone inserts a liberal talking point into an article, another editor refutes that point. Simply reverting such edits only arouses cries of "censorship!" and lends credence to the liberal world view. Naturally, we do not want to fall victim to the balance fallacy, but we must also consider that on occasion opposing viewpoints may need to be taken seriously, if not for ourselves then for others to learn from.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::Some great suggestions, I've added one of your ideas to the list. [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 23:59, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T04:48:52Z

JimmyRa: Please feel free to make additions or alterations to this essay

''Please feel free to make additions or alterations to this essay''

Liberalism and atheism have over the last few centuries done tremendous harm to humanity. Atheism and liberalism have devalued god and the consequences have been immense the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Mao stand as only a few of the most egregious examples of this evil. Matthew 7:16 says that, "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" What have been the fruits of atheism and liberalism? Mass murder, ripping babies from wombs, the mocking of sacred institutions, and so much more. These are the fruits of the devil, these are his ends. We need only flip on a television, open a newspaper, or log onto the internet to see the challenge's that face Christians.

How are we to contend in a world that is increasingly hostile to us? First, we must place our faith in god. God is more powerful than any challenge we could possible face, we must always remember that in times of frustration. We must look to him for guidance and strength. Second, we must come together. We cannot water down our beliefs or compromise our values to find common ground with those in thrall to the devil. The internet gives the faithful around the world an unparalleled opportunity to come together, Conservapedia is a big part of this. We must make our voice heard, and make the truth known, without compromise. Third, we must bring the battle to them. When we hit atheists and liberal hard [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html they fold] because they know how flimsy their arguments are.

We should not underestimate the challenge we face, 50 years ago those engaged in deviant behavior were often arrested for sodomy, today some people want the government to grant homosexual couples marriage licenses. But with God at our back and in our heart these challenges should spur us to greater effort not despair. I was hoping the Conservapedia community might help me brainstorm ways to get Christian conservatives online (and hopefully editing Conservapedia), and conversely how do we challenge the twin devils of atheism and liberalism. Conservapedia is already doing a great job at this, does anyone have any idea's on how to kick it up a notch?

==Idea's to promote Christianity and conservatism on the internet==
#We should do more outreach programs to help people get online. For instance going to church's and teaching people how to edit Conservapedia would be great.
#We could make an effort to promote Conservapedia in fertile ground like tea party forums, and religious blogs.
#Have we ever tried inviting people like Vox Day to contribute? Some popular contributors would add great content and bring traffic.

==Idea's to challenge atheism and liberalism online==
#We should invite prominent atheists and liberals to come get demolished in debates here on Conservapedia. If they won't debate it will be one more sign of their cowardice.
#Some editors like Conservative and those editing the "in the news" section, on the main page, have had excellent success taking atheists to task. We should keep it up, and step it up. There are so many good targets it is a little intimidating. But if anyone has ideas as to where a blow would really hurt...
#We could to do more to go after media companies who promote liberal and anti-Christian values.
#Post liberal assertions and refute them. That way, whenever someone inserts a liberal talking point into an article, another editor refutes that point. Simply reverting such edits only arouses cries of "censorship!" and lends credence to the liberal world view. Naturally, we do not want to fall victim to the balance fallacy, but we must also consider that on occasion opposing viewpoints may need to be taken seriously, if not for ourselves then for others to learn from.

Talk:Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T03:59:45Z

JimmyRa: /* as you wish */

== Kicking some idea's around ==

I hope with this essay to create a place to kick some ideas around about promoting our values. This fight is too important for us to discard any tools at our disposal. I hope this essay will be like an inventory of our workshop. Hopefully someone will see a tool on the list and build something great for our movement with it.{{unsigned|JimmyRa}}
===as you wish===
''Christian conservatives are not always the most computer literate segment of society. We should do more outreach programs to help people get online. For instance going to church's and teaching people how to edit Conservapedia would be great. ''
 I disagree with that. Many Christian Conservatives are very computer literate. Take Ed Poor, for example, a prolific programmer and a former administrator at wikipedia.
 ''We should invite atheists and liberals to come get demolished in debates here on Conservapedia. ''
Atheists and liberals already come here in droves.
 
''We could to do more to go after media companies who promote liberal and antiChristian values. ''
We don't do enough of that? I think the Conservative world already spends plenty of time critiquing the media.
 Also, when you make assertions such as ''Liberalism and atheism have over the last few centuries done tremendous harm to humanity'', you'll have to prepare for [[tu quoque]] arguments from the opposition. It's very easy to cite atheists and atheistic policies as a source of human misery, but you should know that liberals and atheist have an equally lengthy list. To counter such arguments, you'd have to either establish a difference between your brand of Christianity from, say, Torquemada's, or attempt to justify any atrocities they accuse you of (I'd pick the first one). You could also deny some of their accusations, but that may not sit well with people. As an example, denying the various blood libels, or more particularly the ones motivated by purported miracles, would do no credit to your movement. Let me be clear that the things you will be accused of will likely have nothing to do with you, and that you would never commit such acts in good conscience. I am merely noting that an argument such as that will attract similar arguments against you. 
My great solution for Conservapedia would be to post liberal assertions and refute them. That way, whenever someone inserts a liberal talking point into an article, another editor refutes that point. Simply reverting such edits only arouses cries of "censorship!" and lends credence to the liberal world view. Naturally, we do not want to fall victim to the balance fallacy, but we must also consider that on occasion opposing viewpoints may need to be taken seriously, if not for ourselves then for others to learn from.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 23:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::Some great suggestions I've added one of your ideas to the list. [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 23:59, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T03:59:26Z

JimmyRa: /* Idea's to challenge atheism and liberalism online */ Added idea from CamilleT

Liberalism and atheism have over the last few centuries done tremendous harm to humanity. Atheism and liberalism have devalued god and the consequences have been immense the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Mao stand as only a few of the most egregious examples of this evil. Matthew 7:16 says that, "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" What have been the fruits of atheism and liberalism? Mass murder, ripping babies from wombs, the mocking of sacred institutions, and so much more. These are the fruits of the devil, these are his ends. We need only flip on a television, open a newspaper, or log onto the internet to see the challenge's that face Christians.

How are we to contend in a world that is increasingly hostile to us? First, we must place our faith in god. God is more powerful than any challenge we could possible face, we must always remember that in times of frustration. We must look to him for guidance and strength. Second, we must come together. We cannot water down our beliefs or compromise our values to find common ground with those in thrall to the devil. The internet gives the faithful around the world an unparalleled opportunity to come together, Conservapedia is a big part of this. We must make our voice heard, and make the truth known, without compromise. Third, we must bring the battle to them. When we hit atheists and liberal hard [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html they fold] because they know how flimsy their arguments are.

We should not underestimate the challenge we face, 50 years ago those engaged in deviant behavior were often arrested for sodomy, today some people want the government to grant homosexual couples marriage licenses. But with God at our back and in our heart these challenges should spur us to greater effort not despair. I was hoping the Conservapedia community might help me brainstorm ways to get Christian conservatives online (and hopefully editing Conservapedia), and conversely how do we challenge the twin devils of atheism and liberalism. Conservapedia is already doing a great job at this, does anyone have any idea's on how to kick it up a notch?

==Idea's to promote Christianity and conservatism on the internet==
#We should do more outreach programs to help people get online. For instance going to church's and teaching people how to edit Conservapedia would be great.
#We could make an effort to promote Conservapedia in fertile ground like tea party forums, and religious blogs.
#Have we ever tried inviting people like Vox Day to contribute? Some popular contributors would add great content and bring traffic.

==Idea's to challenge atheism and liberalism online==
#We should invite prominent atheists and liberals to come get demolished in debates here on Conservapedia. If they won't debate it will be one more sign of their cowardice.
#Some editors like Conservative and those editing the "in the news" section, on the main page, have had excellent success taking atheists to task. We should keep it up, and step it up. There are so many good targets it is a little intimidating. But if anyone has ideas as to where a blow would really hurt...
#We could to do more to go after media companies who promote liberal and anti-Christian values.
#Post liberal assertions and refute them. That way, whenever someone inserts a liberal talking point into an article, another editor refutes that point. Simply reverting such edits only arouses cries of "censorship!" and lends credence to the liberal world view. Naturally, we do not want to fall victim to the balance fallacy, but we must also consider that on occasion opposing viewpoints may need to be taken seriously, if not for ourselves then for others to learn from.

Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T03:52:20Z

JimmyRa: /* Idea's to promote Christianity and conservatism on the internet */ CamilleT is right though I know a few examples of what I talked about in my own life

Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T03:39:48Z

JimmyRa: /* Idea's to challenge atheism and liberalism online */

Liberalism and atheism have over the last few centuries done tremendous harm to humanity. Atheism and liberalism have devalued god and the consequences have been immense the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Mao stand as only a few of the most egregious examples of this evil. Matthew 7:16 says that, "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" What have been the fruits of atheism and liberalism? Mass murder, ripping babies from wombs, the mocking of sacred institutions, and so much more. These are the fruits of the devil, these are his ends. We need only flip on a television, open a newspaper, or log onto the internet to see the challenge's that face Christians.

How are we to contend in a world that is increasingly hostile to us? First, we must place our faith in god. God is more powerful than any challenge we could possible face, we must always remember that in times of frustration. We must look to him for guidance and strength. Second, we must come together. We cannot water down our beliefs or compromise our values to find common ground with those in thrall to the devil. The internet gives the faithful around the world an unparalleled opportunity to come together, Conservapedia is a big part of this. We must make our voice heard, and make the truth known, without compromise. Third, we must bring the battle to them. When we hit atheists and liberal hard [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html they fold] because they know how flimsy their arguments are.

We should not underestimate the challenge we face, 50 years ago those engaged in deviant behavior were often arrested for sodomy, today some people want the government to grant homosexual couples marriage licenses. But with God at our back and in our heart these challenges should spur us to greater effort not despair. I was hoping the Conservapedia community might help me brainstorm ways to get Christian conservatives online (and hopefully editing Conservapedia), and conversely how do we challenge the twin devils of atheism and liberalism. Conservapedia is already doing a great job at this, does anyone have any idea's on how to kick it up a notch?

==Idea's to promote Christianity and conservatism on the internet==
#Christian conservatives are not always the most computer literate segment of society. We should do more outreach programs to help people get online. For instance going to church's and teaching people how to edit Conservapedia would be great.
#We could make an effort to promote Conservapedia in fertile ground like tea party forums, and religious blogs.
#Have we ever tried inviting people like Vox Day to contribute? Some popular contributors would add great content and bring traffic.

==Idea's to challenge atheism and liberalism online==
#We should invite prominent atheists and liberals to come get demolished in debates here on Conservapedia. If they won't debate it will be one more sign of their cowardice.
#Some editors like Conservative and those editing the "in the news" section, on the main page, have had excellent success taking atheists to task. We should keep it up, and step it up. There are so many good targets it is a little intimidating. But if anyone has ideas as to where a blow would really hurt...
#We could to do more to go after media companies who promote liberal and anti-Christian values.

Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T03:13:35Z

JimmyRa: this should fix it, I think

Liberalism and atheism have over the last few centuries done tremendous harm to humanity. Atheism and liberalism have devalued god and the consequences have been immense the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Mao stand as only a few of the most egregious examples of this evil. Matthew 7:16 says that, "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" What have been the fruits of atheism and liberalism? Mass murder, ripping babies from wombs, the mocking of sacred institutions, and so much more. These are the fruits of the devil, these are his ends. We need only flip on a television, open a newspaper, or log onto the internet to see the challenge's that face Christians.

How are we to contend in a world that is increasingly hostile to us? First, we must place our faith in god. God is more powerful than any challenge we could possible face, we must always remember that in times of frustration. We must look to him for guidance and strength. Second, we must come together. We cannot water down our beliefs or compromise our values to find common ground with those in thrall to the devil. The internet gives the faithful around the world an unparalleled opportunity to come together, Conservapedia is a big part of this. We must make our voice heard, and make the truth known, without compromise. Third, we must bring the battle to them. When we hit atheists and liberal hard [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html they fold] because they know how flimsy their arguments are.

We should not underestimate the challenge we face, 50 years ago those engaged in deviant behavior were often arrested for sodomy, today some people want the government to grant homosexual couples marriage licenses. But with God at our back and in our heart these challenges should spur us to greater effort not despair. I was hoping the Conservapedia community might help me brainstorm ways to get Christian conservatives online (and hopefully editing Conservapedia), and conversely how do we challenge the twin devils of atheism and liberalism. Conservapedia is already doing a great job at this, does anyone have any idea's on how to kick it up a notch?

==Idea's to promote Christianity and conservatism on the internet==
#Christian conservatives are not always the most computer literate segment of society. We should do more outreach programs to help people get online. For instance going to church's and teaching people how to edit Conservapedia would be great.
#We could make an effort to promote Conservapedia in fertile ground like tea party forums, and religious blogs.
#Have we ever tried inviting people like Vox Day to contribute? Some popular contributors would add great content and bring traffic.

==Idea's to challenge atheism and liberalism online==
#We should invite atheists and liberals to come get demolished in debates here on Conservapedia.
#Some editors like Conservative and those editing the "in the news" section, on the main page, have had excellent success taking atheists to task. We should keep it up, and step it up. There are so many good targets it is a little intimidating. But if anyone has ideas as to where a blow would really hurt...
#We could to do more to go after media companies who promote liberal and antiChristian values.

Talk:Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T03:08:33Z

JimmyRa: Kicking some idea's around

== Kicking some idea's around ==

I hope with this essay to create a place to kick some idea's around about promoting our values. This fight is to important for us to discard any tools at our disposal. I hope this essay will be like an inventory of our workshop. Hopefully someone will see a tool on the list and build something great for our movement with it.

Conservapedia:Essays

2011-05-25T03:03:37Z

JimmyRa: /* Religion */

'''''This is an Index of "Essays" written by Conservapedia Members.'''''

Unlike articles, essays may represent a particular point of view. If you write an essay, please attribute it to yourself and link it to this top page. Essays are still subject to control for obscenities, etcetera.
==Politics==
#'''[[Essay:Gun control]]''' by [[User:StephenW|StephenW]]
#'''[[Essay:US Armed Citizens and Crime Control]]''' by --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)
#'''[[Essay:End Gates' Tax Exemption]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods]]'''
#'''[[Cuban Dealings Essay]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Gun Control Essay "Gun Distribution: More Than a Shot in the Dark"]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Court Rules for Gay Club, but Gives School Alternatives]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Withdrawal of Jurisdiction Upheld]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Title IX]]''' by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power]]'''
#'''[[Essay: 12 American Solutions for Jobs and Prosperity]] by American Solutions
#'''[[Essay:School Prayer and the First Amendment]] by Leo Samuels
#'''[[Essay:Liberals can't lose in the 2010 UK Elections]] - [[User:Newton|Newton]] 11:53, 29 March 2010 (EDT)
#'''[[Essay: Real Environmentalism]] by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]

==Religion==
#'''[[Essay:Oath of Saint Luke]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:About the emotional basis of Political power#What Is All This About?]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Noah's Ark Was Real]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay: Young Earth Cosmology]]''' by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
#'''[[Essay:Allegiance]]''' by [[User:DanH|DanH]]
#'''[[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]
#'''[[Essay:Shock "Value"?]]''' by [[User:JY23|JY23]]
#'''[[Essay:Christianity Under Attack]]''' by [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]]

==Conservapedia==
#'''[[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Rules_of_Chivalry_for_Students]]''', by [[User:Aschlafly|Ashlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Examples of Moronic Vandalism by the "tolerant"]]''' by [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]]

==Wikipedia==
#'''[[Essay:Wikipedia's Ads-for-Charity]]
#'''[[Essay:Uses of Wikipedia]]'''
==Conservative popular culture==
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]'''
#'''[[Essay:Music is not neutral]]'''
#'''[[Essay: Born Again American]]'''

==Science==
#'''[[Essay:Motivation for the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design]]
#'''[[Essay:Motivations for the Theory of Evolution]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution of Psychiatric Medicine]]''' by [[User:RobS|RobS]]
# '''[[Essay: Out-of-place Artifacts, ET's, and the Great Flood]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay: Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever]] by [[User:TerryH|TerryH]]
# '''[[Essay:Darwin's The Origin of Species: Supplanting William Paley's Notion of Creator]] by [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

==Other==
#'''[[Essay: Is File-sharing a Moral Action?]]''' by [[user:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
#'''[[Essay:Most Influential Persons]]
#'''[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
#'''[[Essay:Accuracy in Academia Interview]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
#'''[[Essay:Interview with Australian Researcher]]''' by [[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]]
# '''[[Essay:Adultress Story]]''' by ([[user:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]])

{{Conservapedia}}

[[Category:Essays|{{{#PAGENAME}}}]]

Essay:Christianity Under Attack

2011-05-25T03:01:51Z

JimmyRa: A new essay on some of the problems facing Christianity and some possible solutions

Liberalism and atheism have over the last few centuries done tremendous harm to humanity. Atheism and liberalism have devalued god and the consequences have been immense the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and Mao stand as only a few of the most egregious examples of this evil. Matthew 7:16 says that, "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?" What have been the fruits of atheism and liberalism? Mass murder, ripping babies from wombs, the mocking of sacred institutions, and so much more. These are the fruits of the devil, these are his ends. We need only flip on a television, open a newspaper, or log onto the internet to see the challenge's that face Christians.

How are we to contend in a world that is increasingly hostile to us? First, we must place our faith in god. God is more powerful than any challenge we could possible face, we must always remember that in times of frustration. We must look to him for guidance and strength. Second, we must come together. We cannot water down our beliefs or compromise our values to find common ground with those in thrall to the devil. The internet gives the faithful around the world an unparalleled opportunity to come together, Conservapedia is a big part of this. We must make our voice heard, and make the truth known, without compromise. Third, we must bring the battle to them. When we hit atheists and liberal hard [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8511931/Richard-Dawkins-accused-of-cowardice-for-refusing-to-debate-existence-of-God.html they fold] because they know how flimsy their arguments are.

We should not underestimate the challenge we face, 50 years ago those engaged in deviant behavior were often arrested for sodomy, today some people want the government to grant homosexual couples marriage licenses. But with God at our back and in our heart these challenges should spur us to greater effort not despair. I was hoping the Conservapedia community might help me brainstorm ways to get Christian conservatives online (and hopefully editing Conservapedia), and conversely how do we challenge the twin devils of atheism and liberalism. Conservapedia is already doing a great job at this, does anyone have any idea's on how to kick it up a notch?

== Idea's to promote Christianity and conservatism on the internet ==
#Christian conservatives are not always the most computer literate segment of society. We should do more outreach programs to help people get online. For instance going to church's and teaching people how to edit Conservapedia would be great.
#We could make an effort to promote Conservapedia in fertile ground like tea party forums, and religious blogs.
#Have we ever tried inviting people like Vox Day to contribute? Some popular contributors would add great content and bring traffic.

== Idea's to challenge atheism and liberalism online ==
#We should invite atheists and liberals to come get demolished in debates here on Conservapedia.
#Some editors like Conservative and those editing the "in the news" section, on the main page, have had excellent success taking atheists to task. We should keep it up, and step it up. There are so many good targets it is a little intimidating. But if anyone has ideas as to where a blow would really hurt...
#We could to do more to go after media companies who promote liberal and antiChristian values.

User talk:SharonW

2011-05-18T20:46:59Z

JimmyRa:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:14, 7 October 2009 (EDT)}}

==Columbus==
Good catch! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:42, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Multiculturalism

2011-05-15T23:55:39Z

JimmyRa: /* Criticism */ added facts of multicultural groups

'''Multiculturalism''' is the "belief that a society should respect and promote all the various cultures or ethnic groups of which it is composed."<ref>''The American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd edition'', cited in Jordan, T.J. [http://books.google.com/books?id=NyTQXSM26jYC&lpg=PT25&dq=%22multiculturalism%20is%20defined%20as%22&pg=PT25#v=onepage&q=%22multiculturalism%20is%20defined%20as%22&f=false ''"Counselling Psychology" Meets Multiculturalism in the Twenty-First Century''] Unpublished. p. 26, (2010)</ref> The belief has been promoted and opposed by different societies over time, and remains a vexed political issue. The debate over multiculturalism often emerges in discussions over immmigration, [[political correctness]], and national language.

==Examples==
Multiculturalism has often been associated with a diversity of food and cuisine.<ref>Lim. S.G. (ed) [http://books.google.com/books?id=QYziIDfwuGIC&lpg=PA146&dq=multiculturalism%20food&pg=PA146#v=onepage&q=food%20%22has%20long%20been%20the%20acceptable%20face%20of%20multiculturalism%22&f=false ''Transnational Asia Pacific: gender, culture, and the public sphere: gender, culture and the public sphere''] Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois; Urbana. p. 145, (1999)</ref>

==Criticism==
As a concept championed by liberals, multiculturalism has been noted for having a subversive element. It has resulted in ''pluralism'', which has given way to a ''particularism'' which then exalts foreign culture, language and national identity over historically American values and identity. Liberals have also used multiculturalism to excuse [[illegal immigration]], avoid confronting radical [[Islam]] and [[terrorism]], impose [[atheism|atheistic]] views on the American public, and censor [[Christian]] worship.<ref>Hayes, T. [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_36_16/ai_66031188/ ''Illegal Immigration Threatens U.S. Sovereignty, Economy and Culture''] News World Communications, Inc., (2000)</ref>

Multiculturalism has given cover to extremist groups like The Black Panthers and La Raza. Some of these groups have even advocated the return of land to Mexico acquired during the Spanish American war.

[[Conservatives]] in the US hold that multiculturalism is an attack on [[United States of America|America's]] traditional [[Judeo-Christian]] culture. A similar feeling toward multiculturalism exists in France, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy saying "my answer is clearly yes, it is a failure".<ref>AFP. [http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110210/wl_afp/francepoliticsimmigrationsociety_20110210231042 ''Multiculturalism has failed, says French president'']; ''Yahoo! News''; Feb 10, 2011</ref> Educators have also noted weaknesses in teaching multiculturalism, with regard to pedagogy and politicized agendas.<ref>Robinson, D.A. [http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p1000.htm ''Multiculturalism and Curricula: Difference can be cool. But not when it's the rule''] The Robinson Self-Teaching Curriculum. Fenton, MO, (1994)</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also==
* [[Melting pot]]
* [[Moral relativism]]
* [[Pluralism]]
* [[Sharia law]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Doctrines]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Eukaryote

2011-05-12T17:33:02Z

JimmyRa: Introduces evolutionist idea without proper balance

'''Eukaryotes ''' are organisms whose [[cell]]s are organized into complex structures by internal [[membrane|membranes]] and a [[cytoskeleton]]. [[animal|animals]], [[plant|plants]] and [[fungus|fungi]] are all eukaryotes, but [[bacteria]] are not.

The most characteristic feature of a eukaryotic cell, the nucleus, consists of a [[nucleoplasm]] surrounded by a double nuclear membrane pierced by nuclear pores. <ref>http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/search/dict-search.html</ref><ref>http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Eukaryote</ref> The nucleoplasm contains the (linear) chromosomes of the cell, which are organised into [[heterochromatin]], which stains only a little, and euchromatin, which stains more densely. The most important euchromatic area is the nucleolus, in which ribosomes are formed.

#εύ-καρυον (eu-karyon) - true [[kernel]].
#Double-membrane bound nucleus containing linear [[chromosome]]s.
#Complex 9+2-type undulipodium, cytoskeleton, [[cytosis]] and [[mitosis]].
#Many membrane-bound organelles and double membrane-bound endosymbionts.
#They can grow 'large' because cytoplasmic streaming allows rapid transport across the cell - 100 μm.

[[Image:Animal_cell.png‎ |center||Animal cell: eukaryotic cells are characterised by the possession of a nucleus and membrane bound organelles.]]

The role of the nucleus is three-fold:

#Storage and protection of the genome.
#Regulation of gene expression.
#Creation of ribosomes.

[[DNA]] storage takes up about 10% of the cell of both prokaryotes (nucleoid area) and eukaryotes (nucleus). However, don't forget that some of the genome lives elsewhere: plasmids, endosymbionts (mitochondria), etc. The nucleus of eukaryotes also protects the genome from the cytoskeleton. Condensation of genome during mitosis is required to withstand these stresses. This is not relevant in prokaryotes, as they lack a cytoskeleton. The existence of the nucleus permits processing of mRNA, and therefore defers translation. Alternative splicing can be performed to generate different proteins from the same RNA primary transcript. mRNA is capped and tailed to permit it to exit the nucleus. rRNA and tRNA are also heavily processed by RNA editing, i.e. base modification (this also occurs to some mRNA in trypanosomes). rRNA modification occurs in the nucleolus, where ribosomes are constructed.

The nucleus is bound by a double-membrane, which is contiguous through the nuclear pores, known as the nuclear envelope. The pores are required to allow RNA out and membrane lipids in (which is needed for growth during S phase).<ref> Berg, Jeremy M.; Tymoczko, John L.; and Stryer, Lubert."Biochemistry". W. H. Freeman and Co. ; c2002 </ref>

The inner face of the inner nuclear envelope (INE) is coated by the nuclear lamina, which contains intermediate fibres called lamins A, B and C (at least in mammals). Phosphorylation of lamins by kinases cause nuclear envelope breakdown during prometaphase. Chromosomes occupy definite positions within the nucleus because of the interaction between lamins and telomeres, for example the Rabl conformation in yeast.

In the Rabl conformation, the centromeres are at the pole closest to MTOC; and the telomeres at other, bound to the nuclear lamina. This orientation probably reduces tangling, and is inherited from mitosis. Later in interphase, the chromosomes may lose the Rabl conformation, but chromosomes still occupy discrete territories in the nucleus.

The outer nuclear envelope (ONE) is surrounded by other intermediate fibres, and is essentially just the RER surrounding the nucleus, and continuous with it. The space between the INE and ONE is termed the perinuclear space, and is continuous with the RER cisternae.

The cell wall of eukaryotes (when present) is usually composed of a β-(1→4)-glucan of some sort. In fungi, it is mostly chitin (N-acetylaminoglucan), in plants cellulose, but more exotic ingredients are common. Animal cells lack a wall, but may have a glycocalyx, which is a layer of thickened glycoproteins surrounding them and connecting them to the extracellular matrix.

Almost all eukaryotes have mitochondria, which are the remains of bacteria that became endosymbionts of the eukaryotic cell about a billion years ago. They perform oxidative phosphorylation and generate energy in the form of ATP for the cell. They have their own 70S ribosomes and some of their own DNA. Mitochondria have a double membrane surrounding them, the inner one is highly folded into cristae, surrounding a matrix space.

Photosynthetic eukaryotes also have chloroplasts, which are the remains of cyanobacteria that also became endosymbiotic. They have a triple membrane system. The outer membrane surrounds the inner membrane, which itself surrounds the stroma, in which are embedded a number of thylakoid membranes, some of which occur in stacks called grana. Those that are unstacked are termed intergrana. The thylakoids surround another compartment, termed the lumen. Chloroplasts are one of several different sorts of plastid. Others include proplasts (immature plastids), chromoplasts (full of pigments), etioplasts (formed in the dark) and amyloplasts (full of starch). Plastids carry out photosynthesis, converting light energy into ATP and NADH.

[[Image:Plant_cell.png|center||Plant cell: The cell wall vs the cell membrane found in animal cells.]]

Eukaryotes have a cytoskeleton, which is composed of a number of interacting fibre types. The first are the actin microfilaments, which, with the motor protein myosin, form the muscles of the cytoskeleton (and in sarcosomes, form actual muscles too). The actin cytoskeleton forms a cortex beneath the plasmalemma of most eukaryotic cells, which is involved in changes to the external shape of the cell (such as the formation of pseudopodia in [[amoebas]]).The second fibre type are intermediate filaments, composed of spectrin, keratin, vimentin, nuclear lamins and other proteins. The intermediate filaments help maintain the relative positions of organelles and give the cell mechanical strength. The third type of cytoskeletal filament are the microtubules, which form the spindle during cell divisions (meiosis and mitosis), and give structure to the cell membrane, forming microvilli. They also form undulipodia, which are waving structures with a typical 9+2 structure, found in cilia (short undulipodia) and flagella (longer ones). The microtubules are composed of tubulin, and are organised by a microtubule organising centre (the centrosome and centrioles in animals), in which the − ends of the microtubules (which grow more slowly than the + ends) are embedded. Vesicles traffic along the microtubules under the influence of motor proteins such as kinesin (which transports items from the −→+ ends, i.e. away from the MTOC) and dynein (which traffics items from +→−). Tubulin is homologous to the FtsZ protein that is involved in bacterial fission.

The body of the cell is composed of a heterogeneous mixture of proteins and solutes called the cytosol. The cytosol contains many 80S ribosomes, on which protein synthesis takes place.

The endomembranes and plasmalemma form a continuous membrane system in the eukaryote cell. The cell contains a rich diversity of membranes, in addition to those found in the endosymbiotic organelles. The outer cell membrane or plasmalemma, controls what gets in and out of the cell by the use of pores, symports, antiports and pumps. It is composed of a fluid mosaic of proteins embedded in a phospholipid bilayer, as are all membranes. The plasmalemma also interacts with the extracellular space through receptors, gap junctions, plasmodesmata, and synapses.

The endomembranes include the nuclear membrane, already mentioned, and the rough and smooth endoplasmic reticula (RER and SER). The lamellae of the rough endoplasmic reticulum are continuous throughout the cell, and also contiguous with the nuclear membrane. They are the site of synthesis for proteins destined for the endomembrane system and the extracellular space, with which its lumen (the cisternal space) is topologically identical. The tubules of the SER are responsible for steroid and lipid synthesis. After translation on ribosomes attached to the RER, proteins are carried in small transport vesicles to the Golgi bodies (dictyosomes), where they go undergo modification to the glycosylation they received as they were imported into the RER. After modification, some proteins are exported from the trans-Golgi network in export vesicles to the extracellular space.

[[Image:Endomembranes_evolution.png‎|center||Endomembranes probably evolved from invaginations of the plasmalemma, as seen in bacterial mesosomes, thylakoids and chromatophores.]]

The rough ER differs from the smooth ER morphologically. The RER's cytoplasmic surface is studded with ribosomes, and it has flattened cisternae (rather than tubular ones). The RER is denser than SER due to presence of ribosomes. Consequently, disrupted ER 'microsomes' can be separated using density gradient centrifugation.

[[Image:Density_gradient_er.png|center||SER microsomes are less dense than RER microsomes, so can be separated by centrifugation.]]

Other proteins are destined for the endolysosome system. Material engulfed from outside by [[phagocytosis]] (solids) and pinocytosis (liquids) are packaged into phagosomes, and internal organelles destined for destruction are packed into autophagosomes. Endolysosomes containing digestive enzymes fuse with the phagosomes and digest their contents. The fused organelles produced are the cells disposal system, and are called lysosomes. Very large lysosomes are found in plants where they help to bulk the cell with water. Here they are called vacuoles, and are surrounded by a membrane called to tonoplast. Other vacuoles are involved in osmoregulation: for example contractile vacuoles in Amoeba.

Finally, a number of smaller vesicles are found in the cytosol. They are called microsomes, and most seem to be peroxisomes, containing the enzyme catalase, which degrades hydrogen peroxide produced by respiration. In germinating plant seed, many glyoxysomes are present, which perform fat oxidation for growth. Some vesicles also contain food reserves, such as fat droplets.

Eukaryotic DNA is bound by histones, and requires some degree of unpacking for expression. Much of their genome is composed of parasitic DNA and introns. Three RNA polymerases exists, (approximately) one for each sort of major RNA product:

RNApol-I - rRNA.
RNApol-II - mRNA and snRNA.
RNApol-III - tRNA and 5S rRNA.
RNA is heavily processed in the nucleus, which allows deferred translation. They possess large 80S ribosomes.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Molecular Biology]]
[[Category:Cellular Biology]]
[[Category:microbiology]]

Polar bear

2011-05-12T17:28:52Z

JimmyRa: /* Global Warming Controversy */ Brings up whole seperate issue without adeqeute explanation, liable to mislead

{{Taxonomy
|name=Polar bear
|image=Polar bear.jpg
|caption=
|kingdom= Animalia
|phylum= Chordata
|class=Mammalia
|order=Carnivora
|family=Ursidae
|genus=Ursus
|species=U. maritimus
|binomialname=Ursus maritimus
|syn=U. eogroenlandicus U.groenlandicus U. jenaensis U. labradorensis U. marinus U. polaris U. spitzbergensis U. ungavensis Thalarctos maritimus
|alt=
|regionimg=Polar bear range.PNG
|pop=22,000-27,000
|conservation=
}}
The '''polar bear''' (''Ursus maritimus'') is a species of [[bear]] native to the land and coastal areas of the high [[Arctic]], and noted for their white fur. The largest living terrestrial carnivore, the polar bear has experienced a resurgence of population since attracting the attention of conservationists in the mid-twentieth century.

* A report for the World Wide Fund for Nature shows that polar bears, which are warm-blooded, have grown in numbers where temperature has increased, and have become fewer where temperature has fallen. [http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html]

Although certain polar bear populations have been steadily increasing in recent decades, [http://newsbusters.org/node/12694] the [[environmental movement]] has strived to have the polar bear declared an endangered species (see activism below).

==Description==
Male polar bears average nearly 900 pounds in weight, with one weighing in at 1,760 pounds; by comparison, the average [[brown bear]] weighs in at 600 pounds. Females are smaller, averaging about 550 pounds. Black skin is kept warm by a six-inch layer of fat and the the hollow hairs of the fur, which directs sunlight to the skin to help warm it.

The polar bear is the most carnivorous of all the bears, feeding on seals, walrus, beluga whales, and animals as small as lemmings and mussels. Further inland they may eat berries; in the town of Churchill, Canada, they have been observed feeding in the garbage dumps. Polar bears have a strong sense of smell, and can find food from walking several miles on the scent alone. Strong swimmers as well, they have been sighted over one hundred miles out to sea

Polar bears [[hibernate]] through much of the winter, usually in an excavated snow den. Cubs are born in the spring, and stay with their mother for up to two years. Males, which are generally solitary, will at times cannibalize the cubs if given the opportunity; as with all bears, however, the females are very protective of their young and will fight off the males viciously.

Polar bears have been known to [[interbreed]] with [[grizzly bear]]s in the wild, producing a polar-grizzly hybrid.<ref>MSNBC: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12738644/GT1/8199/ "Wild find: Half grizzly, half polar bear"]</ref>

==Value to man==
Human populations within the Arctic Circle have routinely hunted the polar bear for meat and skins, and sometimes for sport. In one famous incident a young [[Horatio Nelson]] was almost killed by a polar bear that he intended to hunt; when his gun misfired the attacking bear was driven off by a cannon-shot from Nelson's ship. [http://www.britsattheirbest.com/freedom/f_abolishing_slavery_two.htm]

==Population and Protection==
A belief in over-hunting during the 1960s and 1970s and the drop in bear population levels prompted the five Arctic nations with polar bear populations to create and sign the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973.<ref name="bearfacts">Polar Bears International: [http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/ Bear Facts]</ref> Since these conservation efforts had been made, the world population rose to an estimated 22-27,000<ref>Nature Canada: [http://www.naturecanada.ca/climate_change_polar.asp Climate Change and Polar Bears]</ref> even though there is no adequte census.<ref name="bearfacts"/> where it currently stands. However, a variety of additional factors, such as airborne toxins (polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs) or the claimed effects of man-made [[global warming]] may have caused a decrease in bear population, principly [[Alaska]] where an estimated 2,000 bears exist, and [[Hudson Bay]], Canada, where a drop was recorded from 1,100 bears in 1995 to fewer than 950 in 2004.

In 2002, the US Geological Survey in the Arctic Refuge Coastal plain reported the polar bear population was near historic highs. [http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths#2]

==Global Warming Controversy==
The polar bear has become a "symbol of global warming caused by humans" in the eyes of environmentalists.
The [[World Conservation Union]] (IUCN) classified the polar bear as a "vulnerable species" on the "Red List of Threatened Species".<ref>2007 IUCN Red List: [http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/22823/all "Ursus maritimus"]</ref> The given reason was not hunting, but rather the assumed impact of global warming on their habitat.<ref>''Global climate change posses a substantial threat to the habitat of polar bears.'' - 2007 IUCN Red List: [http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/22823/all "Ursus maritimus"] (Justification section)</ref><ref>''"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."'' - Telegraph.co.uk: [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml " Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up' "]</ref><ref>''Climate change is the main threat to polar bears today. A diminishing ice pack directly affects polar bears, as sea ice is the platform from which they hunt seals. Although the Arctic has experienced warm periods before, the present shrinking of the Arctic's sea ice is rapid and unprecedented.''- Polar Bears International: [http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/ Bear Facts]</ref>
Some groups even went as far as suing the Interior Department with the aim of adding polar bears to the list of threatened species.<ref>International Herald Tribune: [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/28/news/bear.php "Melting arctic ice pushes polar bear population closer to the edge"]</ref>

These activists try "to use the [[Endangered Species Act]] to force the U.S. government to take action on global warming". Critics have pointed out that global warming activists should address climate change directly.<ref>USA Today: [http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-03-09-polar-bears_N.htm "Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate"]</ref>

[[Patrick Michaels]] wrote:
*... grandstanding political stunts, like calling polar bears an "[[endangered species]]" even when they are at near record-high population levels, are based upon projections of rapid and persistent [[global warming]]. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080516/EDITORIAL/8210510/1013 Global-warming myth]</ref>

Polar bears have been used as a political tactic by liberals in order to try to make Americans believe in global warming. Polar bears often inhabit watery areas in order to get food easier. Photos are taken of them hunting and used as an example of global warming.

According to Mitchell Taylor, who studies the polar bear in Canada,

:"Polar bears were well developed as a separate species by the Eemian [[interglacial]] approximately 125,000 years ago. This period was characterized by temperature fluctuations caused by entirely natural events on the same order as those predicted by contemporary [[climate change models]]. Polar bears obviously adapted to the changing environment, as evidenced by their presence today. That simple fact is well known and part of the information contained in the reference material cited throughout the petition, yet it is never mentioned. This fact alone is sufficient grounds to reject the petition. Clearly polar bears can adapt to climate change. They have persisted for thousands of years in a period characterized by fluctuating climate. No rational person could review this information and conclude that climate change pre-destined polar bears to extinction."<ref> [http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/200701_taylor.pdf Climatic Events – Animals Affected by AGW
]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Global warming controversy]]
*[[Liberal]]
[[File:Three-happy-bears.jpg|thumb|280px|Russian bears]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
{{Nb_zl_bears}}
[[Category:Bears]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Parrot

2011-05-11T18:40:49Z

JimmyRa: added facts, some pictures would be great

'''Parrots''' are [[tropical]] [[bird]]s that come in a wide variety of bright colors. They are distinguished by having strong curved [[beak]]s and an upright posture. They are also noted for being highly [[intelligent]] for an animal. Their ability to imitate human speech makes them a popular pet, even though a parrot doesn't always completely understand things it says (parrots are intelligent birds and sometimes parrots have a certain degree of understanding of words they speak).[http://creation.com/parrot-fashion] [[African Gray Parrot]]s are especially notable for their eloquative talents. There are over 350 different species in the parrot family. The largest variety of parrots are macaws, which are native to South and Central America.

== External links ==

*[http://creation.com/parrot-fashion Parrot feathers - a problem for evolutionists]

[[Category:Birds]]

Rural

2011-05-10T20:46:08Z

JimmyRa: False conclusion, and I'm not sure I trust thedemocraticstrategist.com as a source. I won't remove the other "fact" from Politico but I think its dubious.

'''Rural''' areas are defined as "all territory, population, and housing units located outside of urbanized areas and urban clusters ([[cities]]) and their surrounding [[suburbs]]1.

==Rural in the United State==
According to the 2000 Census, 2,052 rural counties account for 97% of the land area in the [[United States]].2 The 2000 Census puts the rural population of the United states at 59 million.2 Only one percent of the rural population are farmers.3 The average size of the nation's 2.1 million [[farm]]s is 441 acres.3 Rural areas are often admired for their strong American and family values, and they usually vote [[Republican]].

[[http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/glossary.html]]U.S. Census Bureau Glossary

[[http://rtc.ruralinstitute.umt.edu/RuDis/NonMetro.htm]]Research and Training Center on Disability in Rural Communities,
The University of Montana Rural Institute

[[http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/June05/DataFeature/]]Amber Waves

==Urbanization==

Urbanization is defined as the increase of the percentage of people who live in Urban Areas. This may occur due to people moving from Rural Areas to Urban areas, or Rural Areas becoming Urban Areas in their own right (such as a growth in population). For example, artificially new cities such as [[Brazillia]], [[Brazil]] turn a rural area into an urban area. Rapid urbanization may result in [[Rural Decay]] where rural areas fall into disarray due to a a decreased or non-existent population.

==Political Leanings of Rural Areas==

Rural areas tend to be more conservative than cities in many countries. In the United States, heavily rural states such as [[Montanta]] and [[Kansas]] on the whole vote [[Republican]] while more urban states such as [[New York]] and [[California]] leant Democrat. Other countries follow the same trend such as in Britain and Japan where cities traditionally vote for the [[Labour Party]] and [[Democratic Party of Japan]] respectively (left-wing) and rural areas vote for the [[Conservative Party]] and [[Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)|Liberal Democratic Party]] respectively.

<blockquote>
For all the bad tidings, there is one important development that could bode well for Democrats in some Southern states. While they may never get back the rural areas that once served as their bulwark, Southern Democrats are now competitive in some fast-growing suburbs in states that have a significant number of transplants. There was a reason why Obama won Virginia and North Carolina in 2008 -- both are filled with newcomers who are open to supporting either party.

Jonathan Martin [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45627_Page3.html]
</blockquote>

== See Also ==
*[[Urban]]
*[[Suburban]]

[[Category:Agriculture]]
[[Category:Geography]]

Rural

2011-05-10T01:46:45Z

JimmyRa: added fact, I'd like to add image of map of red and blue state to illustrate point, but am unable to find one on Conservapedia and can't upload it myself

Dictatorship

2011-05-10T01:40:22Z

JimmyRa: Changed example, I don't think Pinochet was a bad dictator, he wasn't democratic and did make mistakes, but he doesn't deserve to be sandwiched between Castro and Pol Pot

A '''dictatorship''' (also called an '''autocracy''') is a political system in which a single person (the dictator) has absolute power, because no legal process exists by which the leader can be removed from office against his will. Many ancient political systems were effectively dictatorships, although the term is usually used only in the modern context, where [[democracy]] exists as an alternative.

In modern usage "dictatorship" has developed an unfortunate and unnecessary negative connotation. God blesses dictators provided that they are justly God-fearing:

<blockquote>
"''He who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God''. And he shall be like the light of the morning when the sun rises, a morning without clouds, like the tender grass springing out of the earth, by clear shining after rain." (2 Sam 23:3-4)
</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Select capable men from all the people -- ''men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain'' -- and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens." (Exod 18:21) </blockquote>

<blockquote>“When good people run things, everyone is glad.” (Proverbs 29:2)</blockquote>

<blockquote>“A nation will prosper when its ruler is mature, and its leaders don't party too much.” (Ecclesiastes 10:17)</blockquote>

<blockquote>"Now therefore, be wise, O Kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. ''Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling''." (Ps 2:10-11)
</blockquote>

The [[Greek]] [[philosopher]] [[Socrates]] approves the Philosopher-King as an improvement over [[democracy]] in [[Plato]]'s influential book [[The Republic]]. [[Solomon]] of [[Israel]] and [[Li Quan Yew]] of [[Singapore]] are examples of blessed dictators in the ancient world and modern world respective<ref>[http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn210singaporeed Singapore Leads the Good Life Under a Benevolent Dictator]</ref>

==Examples of bad dictators==

*[[China]]
*[[North Korea]]
*The former [[Soviet Union]] under [[Stalin]] and [[Lenin]]
*[[Nazi Germany]]
*Communist [[Romania]]
*[[Cuba]]
*[[Zimbabwe]]
*[[Cambodia]] under [[Pol Pot]]
*[[Mubarak]] of [[Egypt]]

==Dictatorship in Fiction==
Most often for dystopian or bleak futures, dictatorships are the governing systems, such as in [[Ayn Rand]]'s Anthem and [[Atlas Shrugged]], George Orwell's [[Nineteen Eighty-Four]], Ray Bradbury's [[Fahrenheit 451]] or Aldous Huxley's [[Brave New World]].

<references />
[[Category:Forms of Government]]
[[Category:Dictatorships]]

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2011-05-10T01:33:40Z

JimmyRa: /* No, But... */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused, are you trying to be funny? I sure hope so. When you bring words like "Conservative" and "Liberal" to bear, while taking one as YOUR side, it's, by definition, biased, and biased can never be balanced. Kurdt

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced; its meant to be an alternative to wikipedia. Although an alternativeis necessary, its focus on being un-wikipedian greatly weakens its ability to grow.

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well isn't that a wonderful pat on our backs made by someone who lives in the present and can make that statement objectively.

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia. I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is. 6x more liberal than the average population? Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it. Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face. Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}

No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)

----

Conserverapedia only offers one side of any given argument, and is therefore even worse than wikipedia, which at least tries to be unbiased. Such as in the homeschooling page, it forgets to point out why homeschooling can be BAD. It only seems to glorify it, while forgetting that home schooled students often have a lack of social skills, and miss out on ideas that are not supported by their parents.

In the abortion article, it does the same thing. Apparently, there is no good that can come from abortion, when that is entirely biased. If it were unbiased, both sides of the abortion arguement would be presented, and there would be examples of situations in which abortion was the best alternative.

~Slif
(No, I don't know how to do all of those fancy codes)

so lets pretend that i thought wikipedia was anti-voodoo, if i created a website called voodoopedia.com thats pro-voodoo it wouldn't be fair and balanced, partially because even if i pretended that it was balanced, if all the sysop were pro voodoo i couldn't really see it being fair and balanced, and partially because IT DECLARES ITS PRO-(something) which means that it isn't fair on the topic-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
----
Conservapedia's article on [[Conservatives]] says that they support Second Amendment rights. They forgot to say that they don't support any other part of the constitution. Oh, they locked that page from editing. Any more questions whether Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" anymore? This is any more "Fair" and "Balanced than Bush himself.

NO!!! NO!!! SEriously what the hell. I wonder which sysop filled half of the main page with "shame on Barack Obama" and "oh my god". I hardly think that Obama would call this fair and balanced. Not very encyclopedic, if you ask me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHA.. oh that's the funniest of all the jokes i've read so fa... oh they're serious that's just sad.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

----
Conservapedia isn't meant to be fair and balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:51, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page. "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view. Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view. I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion. This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.

For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.

==Of course not, but...==

Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]], wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:As you state, nothing is perfect or without some form of bias, but Conservapedia is up front that the Conservative view that is often censored in other media will be freely presented here. For that reason alone, this forum and website is a refreshing alternative. Anyone seeking open dialogue should be able to find sites that present a number of different views. Generally speaking, it is much harder to find sites that allow the information put forth in Conservapedia than it is to find the Politically Correct flavor. At the very least we present alternatives that are suppressed in many other settings. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

: Yes, it does balance out Wikipedia. Which means that if someone were to read the articles on Creationism and Evolution on here, and then look up those same articles on Wikipedia, ''that'' would be fair and unbalanced. (Of course that assumes we have exactly the same amount of Conservative bias as Wikipedia has liberal bias, which frankly I don't think is true or even possible, but that's not the point). So yes, looking up the same thing on different sites which have different views is "fair and balanced" but any single one of those sites would not be. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:40, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

==The Wedge Document==
Given that the [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html wedge document] was deleted instantaly, I rather think not.[[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 13:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Absolutely not==

This seems like as good a place to post this as any. I realize that many of you will not like my views, but in this world you need to communicate with those you disagree with.

My name is Max, and I am a homosexual pastor with the First Church Of Christ in Atlanta, Georgia. I have an honest connection with God, as well as with my partner. Time and again when I read your site, I find evidence that Conservapedia is not fair. At all.

Who are you to tell me that God doesn't love me or that I can't join him in the kingdom of Heaven? The only Earthly figure I would hear that from is Jesus Christ, and he said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Not a word. One thing Christ said was that all should love one another, not denounce each other. Instead of trying to focus on God and how better to worship him, you spend your time telling people that gays are immoral and unholy. I did not choose to become gay; I was raised in a tolerant Christian household where my parents understood who I was. I have been a lifelong Christian in the Deep South, where gays like me are persecuted. I have been driven out of churches after years as a churchgoer when it was found that I was gay, but I refuse to leave God.

You say that Wikipedia isn't fair, that it displays a bias, yet you, in article after article, denounce every conceivable group that isn't among you. Unlike you, I am tolerant. You call atheists, as a group, awful things, just because they don't believe in God. How can you possibly say you are more fair when anyone who is not a Christian is driven away from this site?

Another thing. Evolution and God are not incompatible. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the miracle that a single cell evolved into what we are could have been the work of God? Instead, you take lies for truth.

Instead of instantly banning me as with so many others, are any here willing to honestly debate me? Or will you just call me a faggot and ban me? I know which Christ would do.

-MaxV

Kudos, Max, Kudos. I appreciate your tolerant views, as a liberal humanist and a human being. Thank you for being Christ- like, not just Christian. I agree with you that Conservapedia is not fair in the slightest; an easy example: look under the first paragraph of liberal and the first under conservative. It is blantly biased. I do not appreciate how negative this site is to people not of the Christian faith or have conservative views. But anyways. Once again, thank you Max.

-IContainMultitudes

:Well, seems like some people make Christianity whatever they want it to be. A homosexual pastor falls in the same category as Christian abortion supporters. You may take this as bias toward others not conservative. I care to think of it as we don't tolerate sin, we aren't inclusive of sin, we don't coexist with sin. God said it was wrong for man to be alone so he created a woman, not another man. My guess is a gay pastor has to pick and choose his beliefs aka [[Cafeteria Christian]]. I am not condemning your actions or beliefs but there is a judgement day that you will answer for. The rectum was designed for a reason. Procreation? No. Love? No again. Waste discharge. Any other use is just an abomination. Are you reading this vandal site members? The truth isn't fair.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::What Christ would tell you to do is exactly what he said to the adulterous woman in John 8: QUIT SINNING! You think He's going to tolerate sin? As a Christian pastor - or so you claim - you should know better than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Thankfully those of you spending any appreciable amount of time posting on such Earth-shatteringly important topics as why Obama is a Muslim and the like aren't posting on Wikipedia, a site people actually read and rely on. I appreciate your efforts to cordon yourselves off. Thank you. -- Mike H.

Just came across this looking for something else, but my answer to the question would be no, CP is not "fair and balanced" at least at in the sense that some hold WP to be, which, for instance, allows most any interpretation of the Bible to be treated as viable, as its basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and so Pontius Pilate could well be an editor. CP is evidenced to be an alternative to WP, which manifests a liberal bias. While WP is very useful in most topics, CP, despite some drawbacks, allows a distinction to be made between truth and falsehood in places where WP would hold all as equal.

As re your promotion of tolerance, as you are a homosexual pastor with a partner, you are obviously intolerant of the historical, and warranted position that leaves you guilty of fornication , and that of a most perverse sort. While arguments for such may be considered viable on WP, attempts to wrangle this out of the Bible inevitably negate its Divine authority, and renders God into an image more palatable to carnal men. In regard to such, see [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]], and may all find grace to repent and be truly born again and walk in newness of life.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:39, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==No==

Why is it so difficult to follow your own rules? Why is it so hard to simply let people say what they believe outside of mainspace? Is this an encyclopedia or a blog? This text was taken from a short-lived conversation I had with sysop Karajou over the email. I am not afraid of saying what I believe, and so long as I do not try to force my beliefs on others, you have no right to censor me based on your own rules. Unless you're all closet liberals or something. (Ostrich Syndrome is, after all, a very "liberal" disease to have, right?)

Subject: RE: Your behavior problem

Hey, first of all, thank you for emailing! That means a lot to me. I’ll start with the reason that I continued recreating my account using a privoxy. When I uploaded my opinions onto my userpage, I was not in violation of any Conservapedia Commandments. I was displaying liberal thoughts and negative feelings towards the site administration, but it was not in mainspace, it was on my personal page, where I can, by the site’s rules, voice my thoughts. I feel that Conservapedia is ruled through fear; your behavior as an administrator in this situation shows that you have no respect for your own rules or people that disagree with you, and since you have the level of power that you do, people are afraid of standing up to your persecution. I was blocked without violating the rules, and my only hope of appealing the block was nonexistent as I had no way of talking to anybody about the situation.

I apologize for violating the rules, but you must realize that a system of law means nothing if the lawmaker does not abide by it. I guarantee that you and I disagree on a great deal of topics, but that does not make one of us any more correct than the other. You and I are both human beings, and our brains are imperfect. Furthermore, for a site claiming to be Christian in nature, I see nothing Christ-like about it. It’s discriminatory and immature in the way it treats users, and I’ve never known it to spread anything but hatred and partisanship. What would Jesus do? For that matter, what would Buddha do? What would Muhammad do? The point of religion shouldn’t have to be war and hate. I would want to love people in the name of a higher power, not kill them.

I’ll respond to your points…

1) True, I should adhere to the subject matter. But Conservapedia claims to have no subject matter, and rather be a straight-forward encyclopedia without the Liberal bias of Wikipedia. For the record, I agree that Wikipedia has Liberal bias. I attempted to talk to the editors there about removing some of the essentially pornographic images on their vast library of sexuality pages, but I didn’t get anywhere…

2) I don’t want anybody to accept my beliefs. I want to get my opinion out there and show people multiple perspectives, something Conservapedia tries to… dare I say… censor. I disagree with CP, but that doesn’t make me right, it just gives me a different perspective. I want to explore the Conservative and Christian perspective, but all I got for that wish was hatred! Before the system failure a couple weeks ago, I was talking to a guy named Rod Weathers about it. I wished to explore the website’s point of view, since mine was so different. Instead of showing openness, he lashed out and attacked me for disagreeing, not even explaining his personal viewpoint to me. How is that any different than the persecution of Christians in ancient Rome, or the persecution of Zoroastrians by the Muslims? I am not trying to push Liberalism. I just want people to work together!

3) An encyclopedia based on free Wiki software is built around teamwork. Andrew Schlafly has even stressed the importance of that. If you don’t give people the voice they deserve regardless of what they think, you don’t have an encyclopedia built out of teamwork, you have a BLOG. It is a blog written and limited to a group of people who see eye to eye, and I know that isn’t what it intended to be.

4) I could call Conservatism a mental disorder as well, but I won’t because I know that both sides have valuable ideas to bounce off one another in contribution to a peaceful society. I believe in cooperation, and your attitude, your “behavior problem” as a person of power spreads hatred and discommunication. This doesn’t get anybody anywhere; when we make war with each other, we are pushing ourselves backwards! I don’t like Obama because he’s Liberal or Black or whatever else you hate him for. I like him because I believe he wants people to help each other out. Life is a struggle for anybody, and it’s too short to waste any time hating people. There’s no reason to strive to hurt other people or drag them down further for what they believe, just because you can’t see beyond black and white, so to speak. I’m really sorry for sounding so accusational! I’m trying my best to respect you, Karajou, I really am!

Everybody is going to hell. Islam extremists think that everybody who doesn’t agree with them is headed for eternal damnation. Christian extremists, such as the administration at CP, feel the same way about their beliefs. I understand that your faith is strong, but what makes it any more correct than anybody else’s? I feel that faith is believing in your heart that which cannot be proven empirically, and there are people of all religions who feel a strong connection to their faith as you do to yours. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true absolutely, and people who disagree with you are not going to hell automatically. To assert that you can decide what constitutes right and wrong is to assert that you are a God in your own right, and I just can’t bring myself to call that kind of behavior “Christian.”

I’m using a special program that randomly changes my IP address. I don’t know much about computers or the functioning of the internet, but this program isn’t really a proxy, and I don’t think there’s a thing you can do about it, to be honest. I came to Conservapedia as a sort of missionary, you could say. I’m not trying to impose my mindset on others. I just want to give the users of Conservapedia the freedom to think for themselves; I guess you could say that I’m trying to push Anti-Fascism, in a way. I know CP won’t change to my whims, and I don’t expect it to. But I believe that peace is always the better option, and that this site is an ironic joke, the exact opposite of what it set out to be, and I really want to help it get back on track with itself.

Thanks for your time, Karajou. I hope that you and I can sort this out soon! Best of luck to you.

Sincerely, Marvin

-----Original Message-----
From: (Karajou, real name censored for privacy reasons)
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:49 PM
To: hoeftfam@hutchtel.net
Subject: Your behavior problem

"Karajou, my voice will not be censored any longer. I want to respect you, and I wish you could respect me, but that will never be possible if you don't directly communicate with me. Please send me and email, or a message on CP if you don't want to disclose your email address. I am not demanding instant change or personal gratification; I merely want people to start working together instead of fighting. I will not make any mainspace edits if you will agree to give me a voice. Please do not ban me; I will find a way back on with the below message again and again. I would love to talk to you about this; I simply disagree with the direction that Conservapedia has taken, and I would like to help it become a positive resource again. Also, please don't label me using pejorative smears. Thank you."

This is what you wrote above your lengthy rant, and it ends with "please don't label me using pejorative smears". Your whole rant contains perjorative smears you used against the site, and you have a problem with a smear being labled against you?

Here's what I am going to say about this matter:

1. You do not have the right to enter Conservapedia, or any other website for that matter, and edit as you wish. If you think you can do that in the name of free speech, then find a Star Wars wiki and post articles on the American Civil War. Let's see how far you get.
2. You do not have the authority to tell anyone who is Christian to accept your beliefs, your views, and your ideas in the name of tolerance; you do not have the authority to demand that anyone within Conservapedia or the administration here must be tolerant of liberalism or anyone who pushes it. We have booted people off Conservapedia for this reason, and you are no different.
3. You do not have the right to come into Conservapedia and demand a voice. We are building an encyclopedia, not a town hall meeting place.
4. Conservapedia is a conservative website and resource; that is the direction that we will take it, and we will highlight exactly what is wrong with the rest of society when and where we see it. If this means showing off the mental disorder that liberalism really is, then so be it. That isn't hatred for our fellow human beings; it is telling them that what they are doing is wrong, and by so doing, we are warning them from ending up in a place called hell.

You came to Conservapedia of your own volition; no one invited you. And you expect us to change our ways to accomodate you? The pushing of your own ideas as expressed in your rant has identified you as the fascist, not us. Your further went out of your way to gain access to Conservapedia by using proxies and network sharing devices, one in Florida, the other in Prague. That is called lying and deceit. Do you think we should tolerate that as well? Do you think we should tolerate people who have every intention to be less-than-honest when they come into our website?

The answer is no. You are censored whether you like it or not. If you have a problem with that, call the nearest congressman.

Have a nice day.

[[User:MarvinST|MarvinST]]

Conservapedia isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:54, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

No. it's there in the title, CONSERVApedia. it's ok not to be balanced between liberals and conservatives, but you should never try to justify yourself if the sole goal of your cause is to support or propagate a decidedly polar idea or outlook--[[User:Flounder19|Flounder19]] 00:33, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

No. But I don't think there's any source that's truly fair and balanced. The vast majority of our members and editors are Conservatives. Of course it's going to have a Conservative bias for the same reason Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I don't think that's a problem, because if it were it would invalidate every single source of news and information in the world. But it is most definitely NOT fair and balanced. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:36, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

:Telling the truth may not seem "fair" to those who wish to deceive, or are deceived themselves. But we don't follow the FOX News slogan, "fair and balanced". We tell the truth, as well as we can. We also describe opposing points of view.

:It would be unfair to pretend that controversy does not exist, when actually people disagree sharply on all sorts of things. By presenting only one point of view, it's possible to give the impression that no other view exists. That would be deceptive, and yet it's the most common mode of argument.

:That is where we part company with Wikipedia. While professing to exalt a neutral approach to controversy, they began (around 2004-2006) to argue that describing opposing points of view gives '''support''' to these. They call this "undue weight" and "equal validity", as if describing something is the same as endorsing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

==No, But...==
If people followed the rules and principles of the site it could be, and could be a great resource for understanding the world from a conservative point of view. Sadly, the site founder ASchlafly, and the user named "conservative," among others, seem to have little regard for truth, and only want to make all Christians look good and all liberals look bad. Really, the truth is more complicated, and we must be honest with ourselves and others when we take a look at it; it is possible to do this while maintaining our faith, and this is what the best of conservatives have done and how Christians can carry out the best works and truly reach others.

It is sad because this site could be truly useful if people didn't look at the flaws in liberal arguments and then try to do the exact same thing or even worse. The fallacious and trivial arguments on this site are an embarrassment. I can't in good conscience tell my younger cousins in school to use this site as a resource in its current form. I hate to say it but Wikipedia, despite its flaws, is currently more reliable and more balanced. I wish there truly were an alternative that were more focused on truth and less on trying to deny the other side as much as possible.

I really can't tell if Schlafly and the other major editors mean what they say about truth in a tongue-in-cheek or satirical way. But the Bible does not teach us to see truth in such a cynical way. And the world does not teach us that progress is made without confronting our problems. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:48, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

: Amen. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

:::A brief comment: As far as "making liberals <big>'''look bad'''</big>", while I certainly understand that some people have health conditions such as thyroid conditions which contribute to weight problems, I certainly don't make obese and overweight atheists overeat or engage in other unhealthy habits such as "swilling beer" when [[PZ Myers|they already have a unsightly gut that could use some Slimfast instead]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:47, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Funny, and I'm not saying that PZ Myers doesn't deserve it - he's arrogant, confrontational, and disrespectful, and, yes, overweight. But that kind of attack belongs on a blog or an entertainment site, not an encyclopedia dedicated to conservative values. I don't consider that kind of gossip to be a conservative value. And it's not relevant to any kind of important truth. I don't mean to be too serious - I like a good sense of humor, and I want to contribute more on comedy and comedians (I've already added an entry on Nick DiPaolo). But that brand of humor seems like the territory of liberal blogs like Gawker and Perez Hilton, and seems to me a great example of Hollywood values. Thanks for your support, Joaquin. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 19:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I also wanted to add that the claim that I want to make "all liberals look bad" is certainly an extravagant claim. I am merely one person and there are certainly a very large amount of liberals in the world. There are only so many hours in a day and I certainly have other interests than supposedly trying to make all liberals look bad. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:10, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, I do find it telling that you implied I made a fallacious argument somewhere, but failed to support that contention. Given you are advocating that others act in a more noble manner, your lack of holding yourself up to a high standard is very poor form. As a result, I see no compelling reason to further posts to this web page. But please feel free to engage in any [[last wordism]] that you may wish to engage in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:42, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I think conservative's first comment is the most apropos illustration of silliness of this site. KingHanksley: "I have some serious objections to how information is presented on this site". Conservative: "Atheists are fat". Touché , conservative - argument over. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:59, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You complain over lack of substance but you fail to provide any. So, where did Conservative make a fallacious argument? One of the main points of Consevapedia is to hold liberals to account, and Conservative's articles do this in a fun and informative manner. Wikipedia already exists, why try to turn Conservapedia into a copy of it? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Jimmy - I never said that Conservative in particular made fallacious arguments, although it is true that he has done so. At least on the atheists and obesity page, he made hasty generalizations by giving a few atheists (the board of one organization) as evidence that atheism causes obesity, made a non sequitur argument by suggesting that a Gallup study showing that the non-religious are generally less healthy than the very religious showed that atheists were obese...but conservative is one user, he is not the issue, and for all I know he could work very hard and make positive contributions, and I have only seen the negative ones. That's a fair point, I don't know. But my impression is that a lot of the site contains a lot of ad hominem attacks, hasty and sweeping generalizations, and I think the most honest users see it...as for "lack of substance," see the pages on the characteristics of atheists and liberals, the pages on the Obamas, PZ Myers, etc. There's lots of irrelevant information that falls under the category of petty attacks....As for the point of Conservapedia - taking liberals to account certainly does matter, and I think it's great to satirize faulty logic on their side. This does not mean sinking to the level of triviality, making arguments we do not fully believe just because it's funny. I agree that liberals use illogical arguments all the time, but the way to address them is by showing how ''a liberal makes those arguments,'' not making them from a conservative standpoint and making ''ourselves'' look like the idiots. For example, [[Stephen Colbert]] is a liberal, but he mocks conservatives by making specious arguments from the "conservative" side. Some articles on this site seem like Colbert pieces, and those are mocking ourselves more than liberals...I don't think Conservapedia should be a copy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia claims to be from a neutral standpoint, but nobody knows what that is, so it can't possibly meet that standard. Conservapedia, on the other hand, does have a standpoint - that God does exist, and that fundamental American conservatism is correct - and that makes it different and more coherent than Wikipedia, at least in theory. And some parts of it do a great job at doing that. But these petty attacks on things like PZ Myer's weight and Michelle Obama's fashion, and the idea that all atheists are bad at everything and that everything Obama does is bad don't seem to contribute anything. If it's not (whatever else it is) a genuinely useful resource for conservatives, what is it? No liberals are going to read this seriously and be converted. Is it just a place to vent? If so, it's too bad that people are ranting and venting at the same place where lots of editors seem to have put in work creating informative articles [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:23, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Just one more point - everything we say on the talk page, or on debate pages, is peripheral to the real work of the site. I'm not that interested in picking apart the arguments made here, I'm interesting in improving the central content of the site. I'm fairly new to this and have contributed far less than many other editors but I'd like to know if anyone else shares my concerns and what people are doing. I really think this could be a great site and I thank everyone who's helped build it as a resource. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:29, 6 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have to disagree. I think Conservapedia is already a great site. Before signing up as an editor I observed the site for a few months and came to respect the culture that has developed here. Sometimes people come in here so used to the watered down criticism of liberals they see in the mainstream media that they're unable to see the substance behind Conservapedia's critique. I like the site as it is, and would hate to see it change. If anything I'd like to see us step up our critique of liberalism. You complain that our commentary on atheism and Obama aren't nuanced enough. Again I have to disagree, some moral issues are black and white not shades of gray, as moral relativists would have us believe. So to present these issues in any other way would be dishonest. You also have to remember that the content Conservative authors is very popular and brings in a lot of page views. [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:33, 9 May 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2011-05-06T01:02:32Z

JimmyRa: /* No, But... */

Dog

2011-05-05T23:55:34Z

JimmyRa: true, but I don't know if this piece of trivia is needed in a family friendly encyclopedia

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:
[[File:Divot the Therapy Dog.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Divot was a therapy dog at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, [[Florida]]]]
*Guarding property and livestock
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]]
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]]
*Providing assistance to people with disabilities
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]]. Muslims see dogs as unclean, and often kill dogs found as pets <ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html</ref>.

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Working dogs}}
{{Hounds}}
{{Sporting dogs}}
{{Non-sporting dogs}}
{{Toy dogs}}
{{Terriers}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Dog

2011-05-05T17:31:53Z

JimmyRa: /* Uses */

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.
Breeders refer to male dogs as a ''dog'', while a female is called a ''bitch''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:
[[File:Divot the Therapy Dog.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Divot was a therapy dog at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, [[Florida]]]]
*Guarding property and livestock
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]]
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]]
*Providing assistance to people with disabilities
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]]. Muslims see dogs as unclean, and often kill dogs found as pets <ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html</ref>.

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Working dogs}}
{{Hounds}}
{{Sporting dogs}}
{{Non-sporting dogs}}
{{Toy dogs}}
{{Terriers}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Dog

2011-05-05T17:31:18Z

JimmyRa: /* Uses */

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.
Breeders refer to male dogs as a ''dog'', while a female is called a ''bitch''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:
[[File:Divot the Therapy Dog.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Divot was a therapy dog at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, [[Florida]]]]
*Guarding property and livestock
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]]
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]]
*Providing assistance to people with disabilities
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]]. Muslims see dogs as unclean, and often kill dogs found as pets <ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html</ref>

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Working dogs}}
{{Hounds}}
{{Sporting dogs}}
{{Non-sporting dogs}}
{{Toy dogs}}
{{Terriers}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Dog

2011-05-05T17:29:42Z

JimmyRa: /* Uses */

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.
Breeders refer to male dogs as a ''dog'', while a female is called a ''bitch''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:
[[File:Divot the Therapy Dog.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Divot was a therapy dog at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, [[Florida]]]]
*Guarding property and livestock
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]]
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]]
*Providing assistance to people with disabilities
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]]. Muslims see dogs as unclean.

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Working dogs}}
{{Hounds}}
{{Sporting dogs}}
{{Non-sporting dogs}}
{{Toy dogs}}
{{Terriers}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Don't ask, don't tell

2011-05-01T15:53:26Z

JimmyRa: Added reference

'''Don't ask, don't tell''' (Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654)) is the common name given to the law passed by Congress and signed by President [[Bill Clinton]] in 1993 to prohibit openly homosexual soldiers from serving in the military. It was repeatedly challenged, and repeatedly upheld, in the court system, but its repeal has been a goal of the [[homosexual agenda]] for nearly two decades.

The premise of the policy is that a gay person will not be dismissed from active duty if he does not bring up his sexuality. At the same time, the military is legally enjoined from "asking" about a soldier's sexuality, or (in the oft forgotten third part of the phrase, "don't pursue") to investigate rumors of a soldier's sexuality. However, if a soldier does "come out," or if, without investigation, evidence is found of a soldier's sexuality, that soldier can be and generally is dismissed from active duty. This policy also changed the dismissal from "Dishonorably discharged", to "Honorably discharged" or simply "discharged" as the situation warrants, depending on the merits of the soldier's service.

On December 18, 2010, the [[lame duck]] Senate passed a law repealing it, and sent it to President [[Barack Obama]] for signature, who officially signed the bill on December 22, 2010. The repeal of the law will likely decrease our military effectiveness, as openly gay soldiers are a risk to lower morale and unit cohesiveness. The repeal can be seen as a liberal effort to sabotage America's Military, Bryan Fischer of the
American Family Association says it caused our military to become "feminized and neutered beyond repair" <ref>http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501318</ref> This change in policy has already lead to bigoted attacks on military clergy.<ref>http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/4228615747.html</ref>

{{reflist}}
{{homosexualityb}}
[[category:military]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Don't ask, don't tell

2011-05-01T15:51:12Z

JimmyRa: effect on clergy

'''Don't ask, don't tell''' (Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654)) is the common name given to the law passed by Congress and signed by President [[Bill Clinton]] in 1993 to prohibit openly homosexual soldiers from serving in the military. It was repeatedly challenged, and repeatedly upheld, in the court system, but its repeal has been a goal of the [[homosexual agenda]] for nearly two decades.

The premise of the policy is that a gay person will not be dismissed from active duty if he does not bring up his sexuality. At the same time, the military is legally enjoined from "asking" about a soldier's sexuality, or (in the oft forgotten third part of the phrase, "don't pursue") to investigate rumors of a soldier's sexuality. However, if a soldier does "come out," or if, without investigation, evidence is found of a soldier's sexuality, that soldier can be and generally is dismissed from active duty. This policy also changed the dismissal from "Dishonorably discharged", to "Honorably discharged" or simply "discharged" as the situation warrants, depending on the merits of the soldier's service.

On December 18, 2010, the [[lame duck]] Senate passed a law repealing it, and sent it to President [[Barack Obama]] for signature, who officially signed the bill on December 22, 2010. The repeal of the law will likely decrease our military effectiveness, as openly gay soldiers are a risk to lower morale and unit cohesiveness. The repeal can be seen as a liberal effort to sabotage America's Military, Bryan Fischer of the
American Family Association says it caused our military to become "feminized and neutered beyond repair" <ref>http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501318</ref> This change in policy has already lead to bigoted attacks on military clergy.

{{reflist}}
{{homosexualityb}}
[[category:military]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Don't ask, don't tell

2011-05-01T15:48:24Z

JimmyRa: added statment on intent and impact

'''Don't ask, don't tell''' (Pub.L. 103-160 (10 U.S.C. § 654)) is the common name given to the law passed by Congress and signed by President [[Bill Clinton]] in 1993 to prohibit openly homosexual soldiers from serving in the military. It was repeatedly challenged, and repeatedly upheld, in the court system, but its repeal has been a goal of the [[homosexual agenda]] for nearly two decades.

The premise of the policy is that a gay person will not be dismissed from active duty if he does not bring up his sexuality. At the same time, the military is legally enjoined from "asking" about a soldier's sexuality, or (in the oft forgotten third part of the phrase, "don't pursue") to investigate rumors of a soldier's sexuality. However, if a soldier does "come out," or if, without investigation, evidence is found of a soldier's sexuality, that soldier can be and generally is dismissed from active duty. This policy also changed the dismissal from "Dishonorably discharged", to "Honorably discharged" or simply "discharged" as the situation warrants, depending on the merits of the soldier's service.

On December 18, 2010, the [[lame duck]] Senate passed a law repealing it, and sent it to President [[Barack Obama]] for signature, who officially signed the bill on December 22, 2010. The repeal of the law will likely decrease our military effectiveness, as openly gay soldiers are a risk to lower morale and unit cohesiveness. The repeal can be seen as a liberal effort to sabotage America's Military, Bryan Fischer of the
American Family Association says it caused our military to become "feminized and neutered beyond repair" <ref>http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147501318</ref>

{{reflist}}
{{homosexualityb}}
[[category:military]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Homosexuality in Nazi Germany

2011-05-01T15:39:28Z

JimmyRa: Added reference

[[Homosexuality]] was supported in [[Nazi Germany]], although modern gay rights activists claim that an estimated 100,000 homosexual men were arrested for this crime, of whom approximately 5,000 to 15,000 were interned in [[concentration camps]].<ref name=HTRC>[http://www.holocaust-trc.org/homosx.htm Holocaust Teacher Resource Centre: Homosexuals]</ref> See [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]] for further details.

Yet, according to some historians, homosexual men constituted the core of the Nazi Party in Germany.<ref>See "Homosexuality and the Nazi Party" [http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html] </ref> In contrast to the wimpy "swish" homosexual, Nazi homosexuals were ultra-macho or "butch".

The OSS addressed the reason why so many homosexuals found the [[Nazi party]] inviting,
{{Cquote|this may be due to the fact that they are all fundamentally social outcasts and consequently have a community of interests which tends to make them think and feel more or less alike. In this connection it is interesting to note that homosexuals, too, frequently regard themselves as a special form of creation or as chosen ones whose destiny it is to initiate a new order....The fact that underneath they feel themselves to be different and ostracized from normal social contacts usually makes them easy converts to a new social philosophy which does not discriminate against them. Being among civilization's discontents, they are always willing to take a chance of something new which holds any promise of improving their lot...<ref>[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/oss-profile-05-08.html ''A Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler, His Life and Legend''], Walter C. Langer. Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C. 1941, p. 196.</ref>}}

Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance writes,
{{cquote|Even today in America, it is chic in some homosexual circles for individuals to wear replicas of Nazi Germany uniforms, complete with iron crosses, storm trooper outfits, military boots and even swastikas.}}

In 1941 the [[Office of Strategic Services]] prepared ''A Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler.'' Langer attributed the belief of many that [[Hitler]] was homosexual "(a) from the fact that he does show so many feminine characteristics, and (b) from the fact that there were so many homosexuals in the Party during the early days and many continue to occupy important positions." Langer added, "It does seem that Hitler feels much more at ease with homosexuals."

Some parts of the American Nazi movement are explicitly homosexual. The National Socialist League, a group that existed from the mid to late seventies, restricted its membership to homosexual Nazis.<ref>
Bryan Fischer, [http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/fischer/080515 "The truth about homosexuality and the Nazi Party"]</ref>

Scott Lively <ref name="Pink">{{cite book |title=The Pink Swastika |last=Lively |first=Scott |authorlink=Scott Lively |coauthors=Kevin E. Abrams |year=1996 |publisher=Founders Publishing Corporation |location= |isbn=0964760916 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=799cAAAACAAJ&dq=scott+lively&client=firefox-a }}</ref> wrote:
{{cquote|"Most people don't realize that male homosexuality does not always lean to the effeminate. Historically, male homosexuality was much more often associated with hyper-masculine warrior cults which were usually very brutal and very politically aggressive. The most recent example was in Germany. Hitler's initial power base when he launched the Nazi Party was a private homosexual military force organized and trained by a notorious pederast named Gerhard Rossbach. Rossbach's homosexual partner Ernst Roehm, who was also Hitler's partner in forming and building the Nazi Party, converted the "gay" Rossbachbund into the dreaded SA Brownshirts." }}

==References==
<references />

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]

Sarah Palin

2011-05-01T15:30:03Z

JimmyRa: /* Palin in 2012 */

{{Officeholder
|name=Sarah Palin
|image=Sarah Palin.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Todd Palin]]
|religion=Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=11th
|state=Alaska
|terms=December 4, 2006 - July 26, 2009
|preceded=[[Frank Murkowski]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Sean Parnell]]
}}
{{Officeholder/mayor
|number=
|city=Wasilla, Alaska
|terms=1996–2002
|preceded=John Stein
|former=y
|succeeded=Diane Keller
}}
}}

'''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is a [[conservative]] [[Republican Party|Republican]] who served as the 11th [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] from 2006 through 2009. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. On July 3, 2009 Palin announced that she would resign as Governor of Alaska.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_not_running/2009/07/03/231789.html</ref> Executive power was transferred to [[Lieutenant Governor]] [[Sean Parnell]].

Palin came to national attention as Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref> She was the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket. She brought a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007, she was the most popular governor in America, having cut 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp</ref> She is strongly [[pro-life]] and a prominent spokesperson for [[special needs]] children. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket. She favors more competition in health care and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle</ref>

Palin and her husband [[Todd Palin|Todd]] have been married for 20 years. Todd was a member of the United Steelworkers Union, and their eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], having served in [[Iraq]].

Her memoir ''[[Going Rogue]]'' was published in November 2009, with Palin drawing large crowds to book signing occasions around the country. She comments regularly on public affairs via her Facebook page, criticizing the "death panels" of the health care reform program and praising President Obama's pro-war speech upon his receiving the [[Nobel]] Peace prize in December 2009. She appears regularly on [[Fox News Channel]].<ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Personal Background==
[[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|250px|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. 
''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]

Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. Palin attended Wasilla High School where her extracurricular activities included captaining the basketball team which went on to win the state championship.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> After graduating in 1982, she went on to college, attending several institutions before she received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the [[University of Idaho]] in 1987. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.

She worked in the media and the utility industry before beginning her career in public service 14 years ago.

Over the course of her 44 years in Alaska she has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla.

She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan. Todd formerly worked at a non-management union job in the oil industry, and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race.

Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.

Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union|union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008</ref>

Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:
: "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"<ref>http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html</ref><ref>[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, September 11, 2008</ref>

Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:
:"This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'"<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

:"It's a sign of the times to be able to do this," she said. "I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected."<ref>Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]</ref>

Palin's older son, Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] in September 2008. Palin says, "I'm proud of him but I worry."

In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]</ref> Bristol has since gone on to promote abstinence as a realistic choice for teenagers, stating, "[A]bstinence is the only way you can effectively, 100% foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat5025.html</ref> On July 14, 2010 Bristol Palin announced that she and Levi Johnston had become re-engaged and wanted to be married as soon as possible. <ref>[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/07/bristol-palin-levi-johnston-are-engaged/1 USA Today; Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston are engaged. Jul 14, 2010]</ref> Two weeks later Bristol said the reconciliation was over. <ref>[http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20407608,00.html People Magazine interview; August 3, 2010]</ref>

[[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]

==Political Career==
Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]</ref> Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.

In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. In a similar vein, Palin took a great political risk by revealing that Randy Reudrich, chairman of the state Republican party, was doing political business on state time. She did this to fulfil a [[conflict of interest]] statement that required her to report such things; to omit the revelation would have been dishonest. But it turned out that this action endeared her to the people of Alaska.<ref>[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]</ref>

To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.", a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]</ref> The stated purpose of the group is, "To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education."<ref>[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]</ref>

She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.

She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.

Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing and Alaska history.<ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref>

===Resignation===
In July of 2009, Governor Palin held a national press conference to announce that she would resign her office effective July 26, 2009. She explained:
{{Cquote|My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.<ref>[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php Executive Column: Palin's resignation announcement]</ref>}}

That decision was based on the Democrat strategy of filing frivolous court grievances against the governor, more than 13 since November 2008, costing Alaska taxpayers over $1 million. She would would be triumphant in all those legal battles not losing once. The [[liberal]] criticism strategy shifted to call her a quiter over her decision not to complete her term of office and for pursuing media and financial opportunities.

==Record as Governor==

===Highlights===

*With a budget surplus, Palin cut expenses of Alaska's government.
*Put in place government hiring freezes
*Palin championed the private sector
*Reduced earmarks by 86%
*Vetoed the largest amounts in Alaska state’s history

===Energy and Oil===

Palin spoke a great deal about harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which was intended to lead to the construction of a gasline. <ref>http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/</ref> It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope. <ref>http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae</ref> While this was intended to improve Alaska's economy it became merely a vehicle to pay $37 million to Transcanada with potential libailities for the state of up to half a billion dollars <ref>http://www.adn.com/2011/01/20/1659129/lawmakers-express-frustration.html</ref> all for a pipeline that will not be able to make money for 20 years based on natural gas forecasts <ref>http://www.adn.com/2010/12/22/1616472/report-leaves-pipeline-out-of.html</ref>. Alaska's law makers are currently looking for ways to exit the Palin plan for a gas line. <ref>http://www.adn.com/2011/02/04/1684449/alaska-lawmakers-propose-ditching.html</ref> As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that develops policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc</ref>

In 2007 the housing bubble burst, which did not significantly affect Alaska. It did soften the dollar, which raised the dollar price of oil in the global market with out raising the costs of production, this lead to windfall profits. Over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the [[Democrats]] on the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]</ref>"Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share" (ACES, Lapooned by the conservative talk radio media as Alaskans Clearly Entering Socialism<ref>Rick Rydell Radio Program, 650KENI.com, 2/8/2011, 8:43 AM Alaska Standard Time</ref>.) The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]</ref>

Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of [[polar bears]] as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing, asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation.

As governor of Alaska in Jan. 2009, Palin announced support for [[Alternative energy]] programs as she proposed a statewide energy plan that called for 50% of Alaska's power to be generated by renewable resources by 2025.<ref> Dan Joling, "Palin unveils state energy goals," [http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/657216.html ''Anchorage Daily News'' Jan. 16, 2009]</ref>

====Reaction to Gulf of Mexico oil spill====

Palin has pointed out how environmentalists are responsible for locking up safer drilling areas on dry land, effectively forcing offshore drilling to become the preferred mode of acquiring oil, thus inviting crisis like the [[Gulf of Mexico oil spill]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nysun.com/editorials/sarah-palins-way-of-thinking/86988/|work=[[The New York Sun]]|format=HTML|title=Sarah Palin’s Way of Thinking|date=June 5th 2010|language=English|quote=Governor Palin’s point will, we predict, become only more logical in the face of the disaster of the Deepwater Horizon. And she will increasingly come to be seen as having a clear way of thinking. She thinks like an economist. She understands that policies have consequences. If one wants, as the environmentalists have been doing for a decade, to restrict onshore drilling, it is going to incent offshore drilling.}}</ref>

===State Economy===
[[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Nowhere". In September 2006, during a stop in [[Ketchikan]] as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."<ref>[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']</ref> The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on Revillagigedo Island in southern southeast Alaska, to its airport on nearby Gravina island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]</ref> Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release.

She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/</ref> This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it". Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.<ref name="bridge">http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans</ref>

Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not "giving back" money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".<ref name="bridge" /> However, state governments do not "give back" money in the manner proposed.

Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of "objectionable" spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]</ref> Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]]
Palin served as Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]</ref>

During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "[[Bush Doctrine]]". Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson followed, "What do you interpret it to be?" Palin answered with another question, "His world view?" Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a [[Preemptive war|preemptive]] strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the "Bush doctrine" (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/</ref>

===Legislature Investigation===
On July 11th Palin's chief of Staff fired Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan, she was heavily criticized for the action on the 12th in the state newspapers and on the 14th in the conservative talk radio media <ref>Rick Rydell, Mike Porcaro, and Eddy Burke, as well as Shannyn Moore the liberal</ref>, and on the Blog of prominent Alaskan Republican Andrew Halcro on the 17th, because Walt Monegan was a very popular administrator. The outrage was 1.5 months before she was announced for VP. On the 11th of August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Monegan, The vote to begin this action was held on July 28th, two weeks and two days after the firing. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.<ref name="pc">http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml</ref> Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten.<ref name="pc" />

Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Democratic state senator Hollis French as the investigator.<ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]</ref>

:The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.

The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The photo did not include any of the Republicans also calling for investigation. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. "These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.”<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of "troopergate" investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008</ref> Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French "have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged" and that French has called the comments he made last week "regrettable".<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]</ref> Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner.<ref>[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>

The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower wrote.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref> Based on this, Branchflower claims that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8</ref>

In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote.<ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed</ref>

A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin "acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref>

In the end the "October Surprise" predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonerated her of any wrongdoing.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate</ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidate==

On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref> The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.

Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better.
===Democrat Responses===
In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of people believed that the press was trying to hurt Palin<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA</ref> and that type of unwarranted attack could have backfired into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.

Many Democrats had advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.<ref>[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, "Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain," Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']</ref> She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias. Palin "kept Joe Biden on the defensive" and "ended up dominating [the debate]".<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14234.html</ref>

During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, "...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481288</ref> Given the fact that she's stated "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick" and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]</ref>

In what prosecutors described as an attempt to derail the campaign, Palin's private email account was hacked by a liberal activist and son of a Democratic lawmaker who was charged with four felonies carrying a maximum of 50 years for criminal privacy rights violations.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/palin_email_investigation_continues/</ref> The offender, a self described Obama supporter, was convicted and sentenced to one year.

Palin is a lightning rod to the established [[liberal]] women's movement. She, like many high profile conservative females, has taken much abuse from the left. Palin has been forced to set up a legal defense fund to help pay for fees related to an onslaught of ethic complaints, which are always frivolous.<ref>[http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18738 Palin blasts Obama administration: Government wants to "control the people"] CNN</ref> Because she is retiring from being governor of Alaska, the anti-American liberals pat themselves on the back in glee. Liberals still fail to understand that she is ''the'' typical conservative that the majority of Americans identify with. Her principles and her outlook on Americanism is a model for all future leaders.

Palin said of the people who have filed the complaints:
{{cquote| '''Those are the folks who want to tell me, they want to tell you, to sit down and shut up. We will not do that. I just can't, because I love my state. I love my country.''' }}

===Impact on Ticket===

In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead</ref> The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people."<ref>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/</ref> Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.

When asked during an interview with liberal media pundit Katie Couric what newspapers and magazines Palin read (a classic [[Liberal trap]]), Palin fumbled and was unable to name any particular news source because of the side-swipe. This added fuel to charges that she was not qualified to run for Vice President, when in fact she was clearly qualified by her service as governor. Palin charges back at Couric and other liberal media attacks in her book [[Going Rogue]].

==Palin in 2012==
Palin has the support of a large, enthusiastic base on the right that is ready to work for her in Republican primaries. She has been coy about announcing plans for 2012, but she is well positioned for a presidential run. Given her personal charisma, dedication to American values, and Reagan-esque connection with average, conservative Americans, she may be able to pull off a resounding victory.<ref>[http://www.capitalcityweekly.com/stories/120308/new_363163237.shtml Sarah Palin hits Republican talking points while stumping in Georgia]</ref>

==SarahPAC==

On January 27, 2009 Palin formed the political action committee (PAC) SarahPAC. The organization supports "energy independence and reform" and will endorse candidates who "share Governor Palin’s ideas and goals."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azCCxotgdG1E&refer=home</ref>

==Beliefs==
[[Image:Palin.JPG|right|150px]]
Palin believes in [[Real America]] and has referred to it often in her speeches.

Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin responded, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.

Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the [[Pledge of Allegiance]]? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week</ref><ref>The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase "under God" was added to it in June 1954.</ref> In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9).<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2</ref> George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.

Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|Theory of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."<ref>http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html</ref> She later clarified her position by stating "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.

In an example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationism belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html</ref> [[Saturday Night Live]] likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as "that evolution museum".

==Church Life==

Sarah Palin was baptized as a [[Roman Catholic]] and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church.<ref>{{cite web
|accessdate=2008-08-30
|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story
|title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick
|author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,
|work=Los Angeles Times
|date=August 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| last = Gorsk| first = Eric
| url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00
| title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket
| publisher =Associated Press
| date = 2008-08-30
| accessdate = 2008-08-30}}</ref>

Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>, an independent congregation,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref><ref name="miller">Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla]." ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.</ref> when at home and attended the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>

In December of 2008, Palin's church was severely damaged by arson. Damage to the Wasilla Bible Church was estimated at $1 million, authorities said. No one was injured in the fire, which was set Friday night while a handful of people, including two children, were inside. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302503.html Palin's Church Severely Damaged by Arson, WaPo, December 14, 2008]</ref> It is widely believed that leftist Palin-haters were responsible.

==Popularity==
Palin earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and nearly matched Obama's acceptance speech<ref>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/palin-triggers-rnc-ratings-spike/</ref>, gaining unprecedented attention. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with [[Joe Biden]] had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14201.html</ref> Also, her brief appearance on Saturday Night Live in October 2008 gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight in the East Coast Market.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings</ref>
'''Sarah Palin's Alaska''' her reality show on The Learning Channel (TLC) drew about 2.5 million viewers on premier Sunday night, dominating its time slot<ref>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/12/25/sunday-1219-cable-ratings-sarah-palins-alaska-top-gear-ax-men-leverage-kendra-real-housewives-more/76555</ref> and breaking TLC records with 5 million viewers having tuned in to watch the first episode.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/sarah-palins-alaska-ratings-tlc_n_783740.html</ref>

==Publications==
[[File:Palin Book2.jpg|right|125px]]
* '''''"America by Heart; Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag"''''', Harper-Collins, November 2010. "Palin delivers an intimate and personal look at the woman behind the public servant. In her #1 New York Times bestselling memoir Going Rogue—the bestselling nonfiction book of 2009—Palin gave readers a look at her upbringing, her dynamic career, and her candidacy next to John McCain for the Vice Presidency of the United States. In this inspirational follow-up, her reflections on faith, family, and patriotism will read like a bible of American virtues for anyone hoping to understand the truths that lie at the heart of the nation." <ref>[http://www.harpercollins.com/books/America-Heart-Sarah-Palin/?isbn=9780062010964?AA=index_authorIntro_36341 America by Heart; Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag - Harper Collins Website]</ref>

* '''''[[Going Rogue: An American Life]]''''', [[Memoir]], published by Harper-Collins:(November 2009)<ref>[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2009/10/01/amazing-palin%E2%80%99s-book-number-one-on-both-amazon-and-barnes-unprecedented/ Amazing: Palin’s book number one on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble bestseller list, Audacity of Hypocrisy, October 1, 2009]</ref><ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111709/content/01125120.guest.html Rush Interviews Governor Sarah Palin], ''RushLimbaugh.com'', November 17, 2009.</ref><ref>Robert Shaffer. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/ AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'], ''FOXNews.com'', November 17, 2009.</ref> Palin has decided that her book royalties will be donated to families of Ft. Hood victims. ''"I'm joining the efforts of many others by donating my royalties from the book sales during our stop at Fort Hood to the families of the victims whose lives have been forever changed by the tragic events."''

==References==

{{reflist|2}}
{{conservatism}}
==External Links==
*[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]
*[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]
*[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]
*[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008
*[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=&w=MA== I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin] National Review Online
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256099/i-hate-you-bristol-palin-david-kahane?page=1 I Hate You, Bristol Palin] National Review Online

{{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}
[[Category:Alaska Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Sarah Palin

2011-05-01T15:29:06Z

JimmyRa: /* Palin in 2012 */ She will have absolutely no problem raising 50 million

{{Officeholder
|name=Sarah Palin
|image=Sarah Palin.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Todd Palin]]
|religion=Christian
|offices=
{{Officeholder/governor
|number=11th
|state=Alaska
|terms=December 4, 2006 - July 26, 2009
|preceded=[[Frank Murkowski]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Sean Parnell]]
}}
{{Officeholder/mayor
|number=
|city=Wasilla, Alaska
|terms=1996–2002
|preceded=John Stein
|former=y
|succeeded=Diane Keller
}}
}}

'''Sarah Louise Heath Palin''' (pronounced pay'-lynn) (born February 11, 1964) is a [[conservative]] [[Republican Party|Republican]] who served as the 11th [[Governor]] of [[Alaska]] from 2006 through 2009. She is the youngest person to hold this office as well as the first woman to do so in the state's history. On July 3, 2009 Palin announced that she would resign as Governor of Alaska.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_not_running/2009/07/03/231789.html</ref> Executive power was transferred to [[Lieutenant Governor]] [[Sean Parnell]].

Palin came to national attention as Senator [[John McCain]]'s Vice Presidential running mate in the [[2008 Presidential Election]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/palins_vp_selection_speech.html Acceptance Speech by Palin]</ref> She was the first woman to appear on a Republican Presidential ticket. She brought a [[populism|populist]] image and a record of cutting wasteful spending and reforming government to McCain's ticket. In the summer of 2007, she was the most popular governor in America, having cut 13% of [[Alaska]]'s budget.<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp</ref> She is strongly [[pro-life]] and a prominent spokesperson for [[special needs]] children. In an appearance on August 30, 2008 in Washington, Pennsylvania, she was greeted by a surprisingly large crowd as she promoted the new McCain-Palin ticket. She favors more competition in health care and pushed for abolishing the [[certificate of need]] regulations that interfere with opening new medical clinics.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/04/AR2008090403253.html?referrer=emailarticle</ref>

Palin and her husband [[Todd Palin|Todd]] have been married for 20 years. Todd was a member of the United Steelworkers Union, and their eldest son (of five children) is in the [[United States Army]], having served in [[Iraq]].

Her memoir ''[[Going Rogue]]'' was published in November 2009, with Palin drawing large crowds to book signing occasions around the country. She comments regularly on public affairs via her Facebook page, criticizing the "death panels" of the health care reform program and praising President Obama's pro-war speech upon his receiving the [[Nobel]] Peace prize in December 2009. She appears regularly on [[Fox News Channel]].<ref>http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/sarah-palin-to-contribute-to-fox-news/?scp=2&sq=Palin&st=cse</ref>

==Personal Background==
[[Image:Sarah Palin Todd Trig.jpg|thumb|right|250px|In this April 23, 2008 file photo, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, left, and her husband, Todd Palin, hold their baby boy Trig in Anchorage, Alaska. 
''Photo courtesy of Newsmax.com'']]

Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. Palin attended Wasilla High School where her extracurricular activities included captaining the basketball team which went on to win the state championship.<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122108935141721343.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Obama Can't Win Against Palin] Wall Street Journal, September 11, 2008</ref> After graduating in 1982, she went on to college, attending several institutions before she received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the [[University of Idaho]] in 1987. To earn money for college, Palin entered beauty pageants.

She worked in the media and the utility industry before beginning her career in public service 14 years ago.

Over the course of her 44 years in Alaska she has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla.

She is married to [[Todd Palin]], part Yupik [[Eskimo]], who is a lifelong Alaskan. Todd formerly worked at a non-management union job in the oil industry, and also as a commercial salmon fisherman. He is a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world's longest snowmobile race.

Todd and Sarah have five children together: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig.

Sarah Palin is a [[Labor union|union]] member, a [[moose]] hunter and holds a membership in the [[NRA]].<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/29/mccain-to-name-running-mate-on-friday/ McCain Names Alaska Gov. Palin as Running Mate] Fox News, August 29, 2008</ref>

Palin has been widely praised among conservatives for acting on her [[pro-life]] beliefs in the case of her youngest son, Trig, who was diagnosed with [[Down syndrome]] in the fourth month of her pregnancy. After researching the condition, she and her husband agreed to continue to pregnancy:
: "[My husband Todd said,] we shouldn't be asking 'Why us?' We should be saying 'Well, why not us?' We've both been very vocal about being pro life. We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential. I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?"<ref>http://www.celebrity-babies.com/2008/05/gov-sarah-palin.html</ref><ref>[http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29242 Canadian Doctors 'Fear' Sarah Palin's Choice May Start a Trend] Catholic Online, September 11, 2008</ref>

Trig was born on April 18, 2008, four months before his mother was announced as the vice-presidential candidate. Palin wrote:
:"This new person in your life can help everyone put things in perspective and bind us together, and get everyone focused on what really matters ... Those who love him will think less about self and focus less on what the world tells [us] is 'normal' or 'perfect.'"<ref name="people">[[People magazine]]</ref>

:"It's a sign of the times to be able to do this," she said. "I can think of so many male candidates who watched a families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can't do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected."<ref>Alaska governor balances newborn's needs, official duties [http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-05-10-4082128881_x.htm]</ref>

Palin's older son, Track, serves in the U.S. Army, and was deployed to [[Iraq War|Iraq]] in September 2008. Palin says, "I'm proud of him but I worry."

In September of 2008, Palin announced that her daughter Bristol was five months pregnant. After having been given the choice, Bristol bravely chose to keep the child. Palin stated "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter Palin says 17-year-old daughter is pregnant]</ref> Bristol has since gone on to promote abstinence as a realistic choice for teenagers, stating, "[A]bstinence is the only way you can effectively, 100% foolproof way you can prevent pregnancy."<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/nat5025.html</ref> On July 14, 2010 Bristol Palin announced that she and Levi Johnston had become re-engaged and wanted to be married as soon as possible. <ref>[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2010/07/bristol-palin-levi-johnston-are-engaged/1 USA Today; Bristol Palin, Levi Johnston are engaged. Jul 14, 2010]</ref> Two weeks later Bristol said the reconciliation was over. <ref>[http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20407608,00.html People Magazine interview; August 3, 2010]</ref>

[[Image:Palin Family..jpg|thumb|left|Palin family members at the announcement of Palin's vice presidential selection, August 29, 2008. From left: Todd, Piper, Willow, Bristol, and Trig.]]

==Political Career==
Palin was elected to two terms on the Wasilla City Council, and then two terms as the Mayor / Manager of Alaska's fastest growing community (Population: 5400 in 2000)<ref>[http://wasilla.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm Wasilla Population and Demographics]</ref>. During her time as mayor, Palin hired a Washington lobbying firm to help secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm Palin backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006]</ref> Ms. Palin's leadership qualities were recognized when she was elected as President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In 2002, she ran for Lieutenant Governor, but came in second in a four-way race. Later that year, when [[Frank Murkowski]] resigned his [[Senate]] seat to become [[governor]], she interviewed for the opening. Instead, Murkowski appointed his daughter to the seat. From there, she went on to run for governor and won, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and its youngest.

In 2003, then-Governor Mukowski appointed Palin to serve as Panel Ethics Commissioner of Alaska's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's [[non-renewable energy|non-renewable]] resources: [[oil]] and [[gasoline|gas]]. She resigned in 2004 as a protest over the "lack of ethics" of fellow panelists who had ignored her complaints of legal violations and conflicts of interest. In a similar vein, Palin took a great political risk by revealing that Randy Reudrich, chairman of the state Republican party, was doing political business on state time. She did this to fulfil a [[conflict of interest]] statement that required her to report such things; to omit the revelation would have been dishonest. But it turned out that this action endeared her to the people of Alaska.<ref>[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]</ref>

To help cultivate influence and political clout in the state, Palin served from 2003 - June, 2005 as one of three directors of the "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.", a 527 group that raised funds from corporate donors.<ref>[http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/01/palin_was_a_director_of_embatt.html#more Palin Was a Director of Embattled Sen. Ted Stevens's 527 Group]</ref> The stated purpose of the group is, "To increase the number of Republican women in elected offices and in appointed governmental and political positions, including advisory and regulatory commissions through training and education."<ref>[http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/527/ted_stevens_excellence_in_public_service_inc.asp Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.]</ref>

She ran for Governor in 2006 on a clean government platform, and accomplished a political rarity in defeating the incumbent Governor [[Frank Murkowski]] in his own Republican primary. Palin went on to defeat former Governor [[Tony Knowles]] in the general election.

She has also served on the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She was named one of Alaska's "Top 40 Under 40", Alaska's Public Works "Person of the Year", and was recently inducted into the Sigma Beta Delta Honor Society at Alaska Pacific University.

Palin has served on numerous boards and commissions throughout the State, and stays active as a marathon runner, sports team mom, hockey manager and school volunteer. A lifetime member of the [[NRA]], she enjoys hunting, fishing and Alaska history.<ref>http://gov.state.ak.us/bio.php Alaska Governor Sarah Palin</ref>

===Resignation===
In July of 2009, Governor Palin held a national press conference to announce that she would resign her office effective July 26, 2009. She explained:
{{Cquote|My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.<ref>[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/exec-column.php Executive Column: Palin's resignation announcement]</ref>}}

That decision was based on the Democrat strategy of filing frivolous court grievances against the governor, more than 13 since November 2008, costing Alaska taxpayers over $1 million. She would would be triumphant in all those legal battles not losing once. The [[liberal]] criticism strategy shifted to call her a quiter over her decision not to complete her term of office and for pursuing media and financial opportunities.

==Record as Governor==

===Highlights===

*With a budget surplus, Palin cut expenses of Alaska's government.
*Put in place government hiring freezes
*Palin championed the private sector
*Reduced earmarks by 86%
*Vetoed the largest amounts in Alaska state’s history

===Energy and Oil===

Palin spoke a great deal about harnessing [[oil]] and natural [[gas]] resources, Palin presented the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) in March 2007, which was intended to lead to the construction of a gasline. <ref>http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/29/palin-alaska-gasline-inducement-act-nears-completi/</ref> It received bipartisan support and was signed into law by Governor Palin in June. In August of 2008 she signed legislation giving state authority to award TransCanada Corp a license to build and operate a multibillion-dollar pipeline to ship natural gas from the North Slope. <ref>http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=2e84b1e8-9a4a-4558-ad05-21b517c50fae</ref> While this was intended to improve Alaska's economy it became merely a vehicle to pay $37 million to Transcanada with potential libailities for the state of up to half a billion dollars <ref>http://www.adn.com/2011/01/20/1659129/lawmakers-express-frustration.html</ref> all for a pipeline that will not be able to make money for 20 years based on natural gas forecasts <ref>http://www.adn.com/2010/12/22/1616472/report-leaves-pipeline-out-of.html</ref>. Alaska's law makers are currently looking for ways to exit the Palin plan for a gas line. <ref>http://www.adn.com/2011/02/04/1684449/alaska-lawmakers-propose-ditching.html</ref> As Governor, Palin created a new subcabinet that develops policies to reduce greenhouse gases and help the state adapt to [[climate change]]. She supports oil production in ANWR, connecting it with national security.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GE11URmmnc</ref>

In 2007 the housing bubble burst, which did not significantly affect Alaska. It did soften the dollar, which raised the dollar price of oil in the global market with out raising the costs of production, this lead to windfall profits. Over the objections of oil companies, Palin worked with the [[Democrats]] on the Alaska state legislature to approve a major increase in taxes on the oil industry.<ref>[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008103325_alaskatax07.html Windfall tax lets Alaska rake in billions from Big Oil]</ref>"Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share" (ACES, Lapooned by the conservative talk radio media as Alaskans Clearly Entering Socialism<ref>Rick Rydell Radio Program, 650KENI.com, 2/8/2011, 8:43 AM Alaska Standard Time</ref>.) The state then gave Alaskans a $1200 check to pay for increased gas prices, using the increased revenues from the tax.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/11/palin-backed-alaskan-windfall-profits-tax/ Palin backed Alaskan windfalls-profit tax]</ref>

Palin also announced on May 21, 2008 that the state would challenge a recent listing of [[polar bears]] as a threatened species as she and other Alaska elected officials feared such a listing would cripple oil and gas development in prime polar bear habitat off the state's northern and northwestern coasts. Palin's belief is that there is not enough evidence to support a listing, asserting that polar bears are well-managed and their population has dramatically increased over 30 years as a result of conservation.

As governor of Alaska in Jan. 2009, Palin announced support for [[Alternative energy]] programs as she proposed a statewide energy plan that called for 50% of Alaska's power to be generated by renewable resources by 2025.<ref> Dan Joling, "Palin unveils state energy goals," [http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/story/657216.html ''Anchorage Daily News'' Jan. 16, 2009]</ref>

====Reaction to Gulf of Mexico oil spill====

Palin has pointed out how environmentalists are responsible for locking up safer drilling areas on dry land, effectively forcing offshore drilling to become the preferred mode of acquiring oil, thus inviting crisis like the [[Gulf of Mexico oil spill]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nysun.com/editorials/sarah-palins-way-of-thinking/86988/|work=[[The New York Sun]]|format=HTML|title=Sarah Palin’s Way of Thinking|date=June 5th 2010|language=English|quote=Governor Palin’s point will, we predict, become only more logical in the face of the disaster of the Deepwater Horizon. And she will increasingly come to be seen as having a clear way of thinking. She thinks like an economist. She understands that policies have consequences. If one wants, as the environmentalists have been doing for a decade, to restrict onshore drilling, it is going to incent offshore drilling.}}</ref>

===State Economy===
[[Image:Govp_2008stos_large.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Gov. Sarah Palin delivering her 2008 State of the State address]] At first, Palin supported the Gravina Island Bridge Project, otherwise known as the "Bridge to Nowhere". In September 2006, during a stop in [[Ketchikan]] as part of her gubernatorial campaign, Palin stated, "OK, you've got Valley trash standing here in the middle of nowhere," Palin said, according to an account in the Ketchikan Daily News. "I think we're going to make a good team as we progress that bridge project."<ref>[http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html Palin touts stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere']</ref> The $398 million bridge would have connected Ketchikan, on Revillagigedo Island in southern southeast Alaska, to its airport on nearby Gravina island. The Anchorage Daily News also quoted her in an October, 2006 article as saying yes, she would continue state funding for the bridge because she wanted swift action on infrastructure projects. "The window is now while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist," she said.<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080831/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_bridge_to_nowhere;_ylt=Am.NkRx1mLWk9A34FLhn8IADW7oF Critics: Palin used 'Bridge to Nowhere' for gain]</ref> Palin announced her opposition to the project in a 2007 press release.

She has stated her opposition arose because of the excessive amount of pork-barrel spending in the project, and that she would not fund the $329 million that was short for the budget.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/22/alaska.bridge.ap/</ref> This reversal cost her the support of prominent Alaskan Republicans like Former state House Speaker Gail Phillips, who said, "You don't tell a group of Alaskans you support something and then go to someplace else and say you oppose it". Palin instead said that the best option would be to upgrade the ferry system. However, the money that was retained from the earmark was not used for the ferry system, but was spent building a road on Gravina Island that links to the site of the canceled bridge.<ref name="bridge">http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN3125537020080901 Palin "bridge to nowhere" line angers many Alaskans</ref>

Prominent Alaskan politicians criticized Palin for not "giving back" money earmarked for the project. These critics included her Republican campaign coordinator in Ketchikan, who stated that "She said 'thanks but no thanks,' but they kept the money".<ref name="bridge" /> However, state governments do not "give back" money in the manner proposed.

Three times during Palin's time as mayor, earmark funding for projects in Wasilla were noted in [[John McCain]]'s list of "objectionable" spending in 2001 and 2002. McCain's list of spending approved without normal budget scrutiny identified a $500,000 earmark for a public transportation project in the city and a $1 million earmark for an emergency communications center while $450,000 was set aside for an agricultural processing facility.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-earmarks3-2008sep03,0,6145252.story McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin]</ref> Palin, of course, as mayor of a small town had no ability to put these items in a Congressional bill, but her town did benefit from earmarked spending given to Alaska.

=== Foreign Policy ===
[[Image:Ftwainwright_govp_05s.jpg|thumb|right|250px|Governor Sarah Palin visits Strykers at Fort Wainwright, where she is briefed on how the troops are trained and what the training grounds provide.]]
Palin served as Commander in Chief of the Alaska Army [[National Guard]]. In 2007 she visited troops in [[Germany]] and [[Kuwait]]. According to Major General Craig E. Campbell, the adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard who commands the roughly 3,800 state militia members, the Alaskan governor is not in the site's chain of command and has no authority over its operations. He told the Associated Press on August 31st that he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. He went on to state that the entire operation is under federal control.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/31/ap/politics/main4401854.shtml GOP Cites Palin's Skill, But How Relevant Is It?]</ref>

During her first major interview, with ABC's [[Charlie Gibson]], Gibson asked Palin if she agreed with the "[[Bush Doctrine]]". Palin responded, "In what respect, Charlie?" Gibson followed, "What do you interpret it to be?" Palin answered with another question, "His world view?" Gibson still refused to answer directly but instead stated it was the doctrine Bush had proposed in September of 2002, before the Iraq war. Palin gave a response concerning Bush's attempt to eradicate Islamic extremism. Gibson then explained that the Bush doctrine refers to the right of anticipatory defense, a right to a [[Preemptive war|preemptive]] strike against any country that we think is going to attack us. What Gibson did not point out is that he himself once gave a definition of the "Bush doctrine" (a concept made up by the press that has no clear definition) that was similar to Palin's answer. Indeed it has been pointed out since that there are actually four different versions of what the Bush doctrine is and the term and meaning changes over time and place.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/palins-definition-of-bush-doctrine-hits-the-gibson-mark/</ref>

===Legislature Investigation===
On July 11th Palin's chief of Staff fired Commissioner of Public Safety Walt Monegan, she was heavily criticized for the action on the 12th in the state newspapers and on the 14th in the conservative talk radio media <ref>Rick Rydell, Mike Porcaro, and Eddy Burke, as well as Shannyn Moore the liberal</ref>, and on the Blog of prominent Alaskan Republican Andrew Halcro on the 17th, because Walt Monegan was a very popular administrator. The outrage was 1.5 months before she was announced for VP. On the 11th of August of 2008, the [[Alaska]] state legislature began an investigation of Palin and her staff for potential abuse of power in regards to a firing of Monegan, The vote to begin this action was held on July 28th, two weeks and two days after the firing. Legally, Palin could dismiss Monegan at any time as he serves at the pleasure of the governor. Monegan was dismissed from his position in July of 2008, which Palin's political opponents claim was due to Monegan's refusal to fire trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's former brother-in-law who had a history of complaints including tasering his 10 year old stepson.<ref name="pc">http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212168861.shtml</ref> Palin says she released Monegan due to differences on budgeting. In an interview Monegan said that he was never told specifically by Sarah Palin to fire the state trooper Mike Wooten.<ref name="pc" />

Palin has denied the charges and, as is customary, the State of Alaska has hired a lawyer to represent her office in the investigation. August 25th, the Legislative Council voted 12-0 to hire Democratic state senator Hollis French as the investigator.<ref>[http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59d_1220063478 Investigation into Governor Sarah Palin's abuse of powers] CBS 11, August 30, 2008</ref> The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 3-2 and the House Judiciary Committee voted 7-0. The State's attorney released this statement:<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cvn_palin_troopergate Palin hires attorney for Troopergate investigation]</ref>

:The governor of every state gets legal counsel and this attorney is part of a weeks-old effort to provide this governor defense in a series of outlandish politically motivated charges. This legal defense is neither new nor uncommon nor at all political. It is a matter of her job and is not recent and it is not related to her selection on the McCain-Palin ticket.

The McCain campaign came out with a picture that includes three lead state Democratic legislators investigating the Branchflower probe, known as ‘Troopergate'. The photo shows the three of them at [[Obama]] headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska in July. The photo did not include any of the Republicans also calling for investigation. The McCain campaign said the whole investigation is politically tainted and compromised. Republican Rep. John Coghill of North Pole called on managing investigator, legislator French to step down from the probe, saying he no longer had confidence in his objectivity. "These statements cause me to think that the report is already written even though the investigation is only just begun and the most important witnesses have not even been interviewed,” Coghill wrote in a letter calling for French’s replacement. “The investigation appears to be lacking in fairness, neutrality and due process.”<ref>[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2078644/posts McCain Camp has pictures of "troopergate" investigators at Obama Headquarters] FreeRepublic.com, September 9, 2008</ref> Democratic State Senator Kim Elton, head of the legislative council overseeing the investigation, said the decisions made by Sen. Hollis French "have been appropriate, bipartisan ... and unchallenged" and that French has called the comments he made last week "regrettable".<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.investigation/ Head of Palin trooper probe will stay, lawmaker says]</ref> Lawyer Thomas Van Flein called the investigation "unlawful and unconstitutional" and said the man hired to run it, former prosecutor Stephen Branchflower, has a conflict of interest because he is a friend of the fired commissioner.<ref>[http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/522488.html Palin's attorney calls investigator biased] Ap, September 11, 2008</ref>

The investigation issued its report for the Alaska State Legislative Council on October 10, 2008, concluding that Monegan's refusal to fire the trooper was not the sole reason he was dismissed, but was likely a contributing factor. The author of the report, Stephen Branchflower, focused on two questions of the inquiry: did Palin fire Walt Monegan improperly, and was the firing solely because of his refusal to fire her ex brother-in-law. "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower wrote.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref> Based on this, Branchflower claims that "I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/DOWNLOAD.pdf Page 8</ref>

In accordance with the second question the report focused on, Branchflower wrote, "I find that, although Walt Monegan's refusal to fire Trooper Michael Wooten was not the sole reason he was fired by Governor Sarah Palin, it was likely a contributing factor to his termination as Commissioner of Public Safety," Branchflower wrote. The second finding of the report reads: "In spite of that, Governor Palin's firing of Commissioner Monegan was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority to hire and fire executive branch department heads." Branchflower also dismissed the Palins' assertions that they were afraid of Wooten because of threats they said he made. "Such claims of fear were not bona fide and were offered to provide cover for the Palins' real motivation: to get Trooper Wooten fired for personal family related reasons," he wrote.<ref>http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10692757?source=most_viewed</ref>

A preemptive response to this report was issued by the McCain/Palin campaign on October 9th, in which the campaign's own investigation concluded that Palin "acted within her proper and lawful authority in the reassignment of Walt Monegan".<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011</ref>

In the end the "October Surprise" predicted by the head of the commission came to pass. Although the commission was asked not to release its findings until after the election to avoid political posturing, they refused to do so. Apart from tarring and feathering Palin, the report made no recommendations for any further inquiries or punishment, as it was understood that there was no case to do so. No direct reports of Sarah Palin abusing her power were ever produced or asking for the official to be fired were ever produced, but that didn't stop the report from drawing its conclusions based upon conjecture without evidence. Indeed, after the hoopla over the report subsided, the state personnel board released its finding that exonerated her of any wrongdoing.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081104/ap_on_el_pr/palin_troopergate</ref>

==Vice Presidential Candidate==

On August 29, 2008, Palin was announced to be the Vice Presidential nominee for Republican Senator John McCain.<ref>http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/sarah_palin_vp/2008/08/29/126138.html</ref> The selection was a surprise, as those in the media were expecting [[Minnesota]] Governor [[Tim Pawlenty]] or former [[Massachusetts]]'s Governor [[Mitt Romney]]. Palin adds youth and executive experience to the ticket. She is the second female Vice Presidential candidate of a major party in U.S. history and the first one on a Republican ticket. The first was [[Geraldine Ferraro]], who the Democratic Party put on the ticket under [[Walter Mondale]] in 1984.

Palin's speech before the Republican convention on Wednesday, September 3rd was watched by over 40 million people. She had as many people turn in to see her as watched Obama's acceptance speech on the final day of the Democratic convention. Palin has also been attacked by the press on a level not seen since [[Dan Quayle]], although she ultimately handled it much better.
===Democrat Responses===
In a possible problem for the Democratic ticket, a majority of people believed that the press was trying to hurt Palin<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/story/rasmussen/20080904/pl_rasmussen/palinmedia20080904;_ylt=AqErk__wZIKdoVvqUXdr44Nh24cA</ref> and that type of unwarranted attack could have backfired into more support for the McCain/Palin ticket especially with unaffiliated voters believing the press is purposely attacking Palin by a 49% to 32% margin.

Many Democrats had advised the Obama campaign to ignore Palin, fearing that emphasis on her inexperience will backfire against Obama himself.<ref>[http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/capital/2008/09/05/tips-for-obama-ignore-palin-dis-mccain Matt Coopoer, "Tips for Obama: Ignore Palin, Dis McCain," Sept. 5, 2008, ''Conde-Nast Portfoloio.com'']</ref> She participated in a debate with the Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden on October 2, 2008, ending up being declared the winner by most credible news sources that are not influenced by liberal bias. Palin "kept Joe Biden on the defensive" and "ended up dominating [the debate]".<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14234.html</ref>

During a campaign event in [[Virginia]], Barack Obama said of the McCain/Palin ticket's similar policies, "...You can put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481288</ref> Given the fact that she's stated "The difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull (is) lipstick" and the fact that only a female candidate would wear lipstick, the McCain camp released a web ad implying that the comment was targeting Governor Palin. The ad featured video clips of Gov. Palin convention speech, Obama's remarks at the campaign event, and a clip of Katie Couric commenting on pervasive sexism in the campaign. After extensive discussion in the news media, the ad was removed from McCain's website and other video sites following a copyright claim by CBS news.<ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/CBS_takes_down_McCain_webad_suggests_its_misleading.html?showall]</ref>

In what prosecutors described as an attempt to derail the campaign, Palin's private email account was hacked by a liberal activist and son of a Democratic lawmaker who was charged with four felonies carrying a maximum of 50 years for criminal privacy rights violations.<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/18/palin_email_investigation_continues/</ref> The offender, a self described Obama supporter, was convicted and sentenced to one year.

Palin is a lightning rod to the established [[liberal]] women's movement. She, like many high profile conservative females, has taken much abuse from the left. Palin has been forced to set up a legal defense fund to help pay for fees related to an onslaught of ethic complaints, which are always frivolous.<ref>[http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/18738 Palin blasts Obama administration: Government wants to "control the people"] CNN</ref> Because she is retiring from being governor of Alaska, the anti-American liberals pat themselves on the back in glee. Liberals still fail to understand that she is ''the'' typical conservative that the majority of Americans identify with. Her principles and her outlook on Americanism is a model for all future leaders.

Palin said of the people who have filed the complaints:
{{cquote| '''Those are the folks who want to tell me, they want to tell you, to sit down and shut up. We will not do that. I just can't, because I love my state. I love my country.''' }}

===Impact on Ticket===

In the run-up to the Vice-Presidential debate on October 2, 2008, a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center attempted to measure the degree to which Palin impacted the GOP ticket positively or negatively in September.<ref>http://people-press.org/report/456/obama-regains-lead</ref> The survey compared the answers to two identical questions about her qualifications and overall favorable/unfavorable rating between polls taken in early and late September. The results show that public opinion of Palin has fallen significantly since the Republican convention, particularly in the public's opinion of her qualification to be Vice President. Faced with a barrage of negative press attacks after her nomination, some prominent Republicans like [[Mitt Romney]] believe that the isolation of Palin from the media in September was a mistake, and are calling for an increase in unscripted encounters with the press and public to counter that perception. According to Romney, "Holding Sarah Palin to just three interviews and microscopically focusing on each interview I think has been a mistake. I think they’d be a lot wiser to let Sarah Palin be Sarah Palin. Let her talk to the media, let her talk to people."<ref>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/30/doubts-about-palin-grow-even-among-conservatives/</ref> Exit polling from the election itself had the final say on the matter of her impact on the ticket. For those who considered her nomination on the ticket to be unimportant, 57% voted for Obama. For those who considered her nomination to be important, 53% voted for Obama, thereby showing a positive overall impact on the ticket. Considering that exit polling tilts Democratic, the actual impact may have been greater.

When asked during an interview with liberal media pundit Katie Couric what newspapers and magazines Palin read (a classic [[Liberal trap]]), Palin fumbled and was unable to name any particular news source because of the side-swipe. This added fuel to charges that she was not qualified to run for Vice President, when in fact she was clearly qualified by her service as governor. Palin charges back at Couric and other liberal media attacks in her book [[Going Rogue]].

==Palin in 2012==
Palin has the support of a large, enthusiastic base on the right that is ready to work for her in Republican primaries. She has been coy about announcing plans for 2012, but she is well positioned for a presidential run. Given her personal charisma and Reagan-esque connection with average, conservative Americans, she may be able to pull off a resounding victory.<ref>[http://www.capitalcityweekly.com/stories/120308/new_363163237.shtml Sarah Palin hits Republican talking points while stumping in Georgia]</ref>

==SarahPAC==

On January 27, 2009 Palin formed the political action committee (PAC) SarahPAC. The organization supports "energy independence and reform" and will endorse candidates who "share Governor Palin’s ideas and goals."<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=azCCxotgdG1E&refer=home</ref>

==Beliefs==
[[Image:Palin.JPG|right|150px]]
Palin believes in [[Real America]] and has referred to it often in her speeches.

Palin filled out a policy questionnaire for the Eagle Forum Alaska during her 2006 gubernatorial race. One question asked, "Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?" Palin responded, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." Yet [[public schools]] still resist teaching abstinence and instead promote sexual behavior by teenagers.

Another question asked, "Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the [[Pledge of Allegiance]]? Why or why not?" Palin replied, "Not on your life. '''If it was good enough for the Founding Fathers''', it's good enough for me and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Many liberals ignorant of the history of "under God" have tried to ridicule Palin's remark, even calling her an "idiot" for it.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2008/sep/01/week</ref><ref>The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, and George Washington's phrase "under God" was added to it in June 1954.</ref> In fact, the origin of the phrase "under God" is the General Orders of [[George Washington]] on July 2 and 9, 1776: "The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of this army" (July 2); "the peace and safety of the Country now depends, under God, solely on the success of our arms" (July 9).<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/264xqezm.asp?pg=2</ref> George Washington was indeed a [[Founding Father]], and the Founding Fathers made no secret of their Christian faith and unfailing belief in God in the [[Declaration of Independence]] and later writings.

Palin also believes that students need to learn of the controversy surrounding the [[Theory of evolution|Theory of evolution]], and that discussing Creationism should not be banned from schools. During the 2006 campaign for the Alaskan Governorship, Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."<ref>http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html</ref> She later clarified her position by stating "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. As of September 2008 she has kept that pledge.

In an example of liberal mockery, the [[Huffington Post]] attempted to make light of Sarah Palin's creationist beliefs, highlighting the creationism belief that [[dinosaur|dinosaurs]] and man coexisted.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/28/palin-claimed-dinosaurs-a_n_130012.html</ref> [[Saturday Night Live]] likewise did a skit in which they had her refer to the Museum of Natural History as "that evolution museum".

==Church Life==

Sarah Palin was baptized as a [[Roman Catholic]] and, at age 12, she was rebaptized in the Wasilla Assembly of God church.<ref>{{cite web
|accessdate=2008-08-30
|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainveepbio30-2008aug30,0,2159346.story
|title=Palin has risen quickly from PTA to VP pick
|author=Decker, Cathleen and Michael Finnegan,
|work=Los Angeles Times
|date=August 30, 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
| last = Gorsk| first = Eric
| url = http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4-w_DCWffagBaQb8Il9a0R2hkPAD92SL7E00
| title = Evangelicals energized by McCain-Palin ticket
| publisher =Associated Press
| date = 2008-08-30
| accessdate = 2008-08-30}}</ref>

Palin attends the Wasilla Bible Church<ref>{{cite web |first=David |last=Pepper |title=Regarding Governor Palin: A Letter from Pastor David Pepper |url=http://churchontherockak.org/Regarding-Sarah-Palin.html |publisher=Church on the Rock |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>, an independent congregation,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wasillabible.org/faq.htm |title=Wasilla Bible Church FAQ |accessdate=2008-09-05 |work= |publisher= |date= }}</ref><ref name="miller">Lisa Miller and Amanda Coyne. "[http://www.newsweek.com/id/156679 A Visit to Palin's Church: Scripture and discretion on the program in Wasilla]." ''Newsweek''. Sept. 2, 2008.</ref> when at home and attended the Juneau Christian Center when in Juneau as governor.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement Concerning Sarah Palin |url=http://www.jccalaska.com/images/10000/3000/582JU/user/palin.htm |publisher=Juneau Christian Center |date=2008-09-03 |accessdate=2008-09-04}}</ref>

In December of 2008, Palin's church was severely damaged by arson. Damage to the Wasilla Bible Church was estimated at $1 million, authorities said. No one was injured in the fire, which was set Friday night while a handful of people, including two children, were inside. <ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/13/AR2008121302503.html Palin's Church Severely Damaged by Arson, WaPo, December 14, 2008]</ref> It is widely believed that leftist Palin-haters were responsible.

==Popularity==
Palin earned the highest TV ratings at the Republican convention when she spoke, even surpassing McCain's acceptance speech, and nearly matched Obama's acceptance speech<ref>http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/palin-triggers-rnc-ratings-spike/</ref>, gaining unprecedented attention. Likewise her Vice Presidential debate with [[Joe Biden]] had more viewers than any of the three debates between McCain and Obama.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14201.html</ref> Also, her brief appearance on Saturday Night Live in October 2008 gave the show its highest ratings in 14 years, and was actually the third highest ranked show for the week based on the number of people who tuned in originally to watch her, 17 million, even though it ran at midnight in the East Coast Market.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/20/ustelevision-tvratings</ref>
'''Sarah Palin's Alaska''' her reality show on The Learning Channel (TLC) drew about 2.5 million viewers on premier Sunday night, dominating its time slot<ref>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2010/12/25/sunday-1219-cable-ratings-sarah-palins-alaska-top-gear-ax-men-leverage-kendra-real-housewives-more/76555</ref> and breaking TLC records with 5 million viewers having tuned in to watch the first episode.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/15/sarah-palins-alaska-ratings-tlc_n_783740.html</ref>

==Publications==
[[File:Palin Book2.jpg|right|125px]]
* '''''"America by Heart; Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag"''''', Harper-Collins, November 2010. "Palin delivers an intimate and personal look at the woman behind the public servant. In her #1 New York Times bestselling memoir Going Rogue—the bestselling nonfiction book of 2009—Palin gave readers a look at her upbringing, her dynamic career, and her candidacy next to John McCain for the Vice Presidency of the United States. In this inspirational follow-up, her reflections on faith, family, and patriotism will read like a bible of American virtues for anyone hoping to understand the truths that lie at the heart of the nation." <ref>[http://www.harpercollins.com/books/America-Heart-Sarah-Palin/?isbn=9780062010964?AA=index_authorIntro_36341 America by Heart; Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag - Harper Collins Website]</ref>

* '''''[[Going Rogue: An American Life]]''''', [[Memoir]], published by Harper-Collins:(November 2009)<ref>[http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2009/10/01/amazing-palin%E2%80%99s-book-number-one-on-both-amazon-and-barnes-unprecedented/ Amazing: Palin’s book number one on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble bestseller list, Audacity of Hypocrisy, October 1, 2009]</ref><ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111709/content/01125120.guest.html Rush Interviews Governor Sarah Palin], ''RushLimbaugh.com'', November 17, 2009.</ref><ref>Robert Shaffer. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/ AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'], ''FOXNews.com'', November 17, 2009.</ref> Palin has decided that her book royalties will be donated to families of Ft. Hood victims. ''"I'm joining the efforts of many others by donating my royalties from the book sales during our stop at Fort Hood to the families of the victims whose lives have been forever changed by the tragic events."''

==References==

{{reflist|2}}
{{conservatism}}
==External Links==
*[http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ State of Alaska - Governor Sarah Palin Official Website]
*[http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=864bb9006da3f010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD National Governor's Association - Alaska Governor Sarah Palin]
*[http://votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=27200 Project Vote Smart - Governor Sarah H. Palin]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Sarah Palin On the issues]
*[http://parentingfreedom.com/2008/09/03/sarah-palin-mother-and-first-female-vice-president-pictures-children-parenting/ Sarah Palin: Mother and First Female Vice President], ''Parenting Freedom'', September 03, 2008
*[http://churchformen.blogspot.com/2008/09/people-around-world-are-asking-who-is.html Sarah Palin, a friend of mine]
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDE3MmE5MDVmMGM1YjQ2NmVhMjJkN2I2ZTcxMzhlNjU=&w=MA== I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin] National Review Online
*[http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/256099/i-hate-you-bristol-palin-david-kahane?page=1 I Hate You, Bristol Palin] National Review Online

{{DEFAULTSORT:Palin, Sarah}}
[[Category:Alaska Governors]]
[[Category:Republican Governors]]
[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:Women]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category: Conservatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

Spice

2011-04-25T01:26:43Z

JimmyRa: added historical fact

[[Image:DriedPeppercorns.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Peppercorns, a common spice]]
'''Spice''' is an edible substance of plant origin. Small amounts of spice are often used as a seasoning to [[flavor]] foods, while cooking, or after preparation, and also in some beverages. Spices often have distinct aromatic smells that can be used to identify them.

Some common spices used in cooking: pepper, clove, [[nutmeg]], [[cinnamon]], [[paprika]].

Eggnog is an example of a beverage prepared with spice (nutmeg).

Spices are also used in fragrances, perfumes, and oils, and for medicinal purposes.

They have a long history of use and are mentioned in the [[Bible]]. The three wise men carried gifts including frankincense and myrrh, and [[Moses]] was commanded by the Lord to make a perfume of sweet spices, including cinnamon.

Spice's were used in the middle ages to cover the flavor of rotting food.

== References ==
*http://www.perfumes.com/eng/history.htm
*http://www.preparingforeternity.com/br/br89.htm
*http://bible.cc/revelation/18-13.htm
*http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol5/E4/e4_nt.html
*http://www.spiceadvice.com/history/history.html

[[Category: Food and Drink]]
[[Category: Spices]]

Pajamas

2011-04-24T19:51:21Z

JimmyRa:

'''Pajamas''' (also spelt ''pyjamas'') are loose [[clothing]] worn for [[sleep]]ing comfortably.
Pajamas, or PJs for short, are the clothes you wear to bed. They are often flannel. In Christian media pajamas are often used in place of lingerie and other obscene clothing shown by the [[Hollywood values|secular media]].
[[Category:Clothing]]

Pajamas

2011-04-24T19:49:39Z

JimmyRa: fixed link

Pajamas

2011-04-24T19:47:13Z

JimmyRa: link

'''Pajamas''' (also spelt ''pyjamas'') are loose [[clothing]] worn for [[sleep]]ing comfortably.
Pajamas, or PJs for short, are the clothes you wear to bed. They are often flannel. In Christian media pajamas are often used in place of lingerie and other obscene clothing shown by the [[http://conservapedia.com/Hollywood_values secular media]].
[[Category:Clothing]]

Pajamas

2011-04-24T19:44:28Z

JimmyRa: appropriate garment

Old Earth

2011-04-14T00:27:35Z

JimmyRa: /* Contradiction in Old Earth Theory */ Has old earth creationism been disproved?

'''Old Earth''' theories propose that the Earth has existed for billions of years. These theories developed in connection with the [[theory of evolution]], which would could not have possibly occurred in the thousands of years that people had previously estimated the age of the Earth to be.

Old Earth theories struggle to explain youthful characteristics of the earth, such as the massive fresh water Great Lakes. Over long periods of time fresh water reservoirs would inevitably dissipate. Theories of [[Ice Age]]s developed as a way to explain fresh water reservoirs. Underground wells provide a similar challenge for Old Earth advocates.

Flooding is another challenge for Old Earth advocates, as it would wipe out any evolutionary path, particularly among mammals. The likelihood of a massive flood increases with the period of time, and an older Earth means more disruptive flooding.

The principle basis for Old Earth is [[radiometric dating]], but it is a logical tautology to assume that [[radioactive decay]] rates have always been constant, even at higher energy levels. Such assumption is identical to assuming that the Earth is old, and hence that argument is circular.

The discipline of [[uniformitarianism]] is also a basis for assuming an old Earth. Extrapolating the rate of geologic processes backwards in time yields an Earth substantially older than the Biblical 6,000 years. Uniformitarianism is also based on assumptions, however; namely, that all geologic processes were acting at the same or similar rates for the whole history of the Earth.

== Supposed contradiction in Old Earth Theory ==

The fundamental contradiction in the belief in an Old Earth is this:

*physical laws, such as rates of decay, must have been different at higher energies and times closer to the origin of the universe
*yet physical rates, such as rates of decay, must somehow have been constant since the origin of the universe, in order to use extrapolation to date it

==Physical origin of the Earth==
Those who accept an old Earth generally believe that natural processes formed the Earth and solar system over a long period of time. This is as opposed to the Young-Earth creationist belief in an essentially instantaneous creation.

==See also==
*[[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]

[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Geology]]