Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:PNAS Response to Letter

2008-10-18T13:41:05Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Point 5 Confirmed */

Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.

Note: earlier posts are archived [[Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter/Archive1|here]]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 17:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

== Point 5 Confirmed ==

I would like to contribute to this discussion because I have taught statistics to graduate biology students for 16 years.

The combination of data from several experiments is a specialist and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but a simple example shows why Aschafly’s concern about combining the results of three different experiments is not justified and why this aspect of his criticism of Lenski’s recent paper in PNAS is not valid.

Suppose we want to conduct a test of whether or not men are taller than women on average. For the sake of the example, I generated random heights of people from a population in which men had an average height of 175cm (5’10’) and women of 165cm (5’6”). The standard deviations of height in both sexes were 7cm. I think these numbers are approximately correct for people in the UK but the details aren’t important.

Suppose we take 5 samples of 2 men and 2 women. Here are the numbers I generated:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Man1 !! Man2 !! Woman1 !! Woman2 !! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P
|-
| 176 || 179 || 157 || 148 || 177.5 || 152.5 || 25 || 5.27 || 0.017
|-
| 180 || 176 || 160 || 164 || 178 || 162 || 16 || 5.66 || 0.015
|-
| 176 || 175 || 167 || 165 || 175.5 || 166 || 9.5 || 8.50 || 0.0068
|-
| 169 || 171 || 168 || 173 || 170 || 170.5 || -0.5 || -0.19 || 0.57
|-
| 179 || 175 || 166 || 178 || 177 || 172 || 5 || 0.79 || 0.26
|-
|}

P in the last column is the t-test probability for a one-side test of women being shorter than men. (Formally, it’s the probability of getting a value of t greater than that calculated from the data if women are in fact taller than men on average.)

Should the fact that, in the fourth sample, the average height of the women is taller than that of the men make us doubt that men are in fact taller on average? Should we be concerned about the last sample, in which the difference in height of the two sexes is rather small, though in the expected direction? No, in both cases. When we combine the data on all 10 men and all 10 women, we get this:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! ''P''
|-
| 175.6 || 164.6 || 11 || 3.85 || 0.00058
|-
|}

Clearly, combining the data from several similar experiments strengthens the conclusions considerably, as shown by the fact that ''P'' is much smaller for the combined data than for any individual sample.

Although the combination of data from several experiments is a specialised area of statistics, I see nothing particularly incorrect about the approach used by Lenski and his colleagues. The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so. (For example: A. Combining the results of five samples of the heights of men and women is clearly valid. B. Combining three samples of heights of men and women with two samples of lengths of male and female squid clearly isn’t.) Generally speaking, the outcome of a combined analysis of several small experiments which all point in the same direction (or at least in a similar direction) will be more significant than that of any one of those experiments, as is shown in the larger table above.

I hope this clarifies the extensive discussion on this point and puts Aschafly’s mind at rest on this subject. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 08:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:That's very nicely put, thanks. You should work on some of the stats pages here. Of course, technically any sample is ultimately just a combination of ''n'' samples of size 1. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 13:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

:I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
::"''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so"''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:''"It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above"''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''"I suggest you try harder with an open mind"''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DeanS&page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted "open mind" of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

'''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, "The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.

In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.

When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

(rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a "sample" is either:

::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)
::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)

:::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

:::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::: You say "statistical technique used," but you should have said "statistical technique ''cited''." In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size:

::::::: "When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis."[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].

:::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates
|-
| 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72
|-
| 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340
|-
| 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800
|-
|}

Applying the formula described above..

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p
|-
| Equal || 4.025 || <0.001
|-
|By total Cit+|| 3.576 || <0.001
|-
|By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034
|-
|}

So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0<P<0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P<0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P<0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun).
--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

: Sorry, Toffeeman, a falsehood is still a falsehood. Based on your own posting, if Lenski had applied the Whitlock Z-transform paper in a logical manner, the results would not have been nearly as striking as Lenski claimed (his paper said the results were "extremely significant"). Moreover, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of "whether or not"<ref>"We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one." (Lenski paper at 7902).</ref> obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.

: People have free will to embrace and defend falsehoods. I don't expect them to change quickly or admit they were wrong. But you'll find me defending and promoting the truth.

: Point 5 remains valid and the falsehood remains uncorrected by PNAS or Lenski. Four other points in higher priority remain uncorrected by them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::'''''"a falsehood is still a falsehood"'''''. Precisely, the null hypothesis should be considered false and the conclusions of the paper stand.

::Oh? Do you mean ''Lenski's falsehood''? And what falsehood is that? Lenski said that he had calculated the P-value without weighting and that had come out at <0.0001. That is true, not false. Lenski said he had calculated the P-value weighting on the basis of the Cit+ replicates and that had come out at <0.0001. That is true, not false. There is no falsehood. Lenski did not mention the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. He thus made no claim about weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. If he made no claim he cannot have made a false claim.

::How do the words Lenski uses "mislead". If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to? You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to? You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not "rare-but-equal", instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. Thus is cannot be said to be "misleading".

::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to ''"Tu Quoque"'' would be too great.

--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::: The falsehood consists of pretending to apply the Whitlock Z-transform in a straightforward, logical and correct manner. I think the Lenski paper is intentionally misleading by using the "whether or not" wording, when both alternatives are nonsensical. Point 5 has been proven above to be correct in identify an error in the Lenski paper.

::: "Toffeeman", your blocking history suggests you have been less than straightforward yourself. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful. You're not fooling anyone here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

::::Lenski did apply the Z-transformation correctly, both weighted and unweighted. The data points extracted from each replay are the ''generation numbers of those replicates that gave rise to Cit+ mutants''. Thus Replay 1 produced four data points: 30,500 31,500 32,500 32,500. Replay 2 produced five data points: 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,500. Replay 3 produced eight data points: 20,000 20,000 27,000 27,000 31,000 31,500 32,000 32,000. Thus the N for replay 1 is 4; replay 2 is 5 and replay 3 is 8. The fact that replay 3 used 38 times as many replicates as replay 1 does not mean that it should be weighted 38 times as much; it only produced twice as much data, not 38 times as much.

::::Suppose I want to find out what the average age of a murderer is in three cities. In L.A. I interview 72 random people and find that 4 of them were convicted of murder; I record the ages of the four. In Seattle I interview 340 people and find that 5 of them are convicted murderers; likewise in Singapore I interview 2800 and find 8 murderers. In the end, I have 4,5, and 8 data points from the three cities; the number of people I had to interview to obtain those data points doesn't factor into the analysis of what the average age of the murderers is.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 00:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::::: In your first paragraph you simply repeat the error underlying Lenski's paper. You, like the paper, incorrectly apply Whitlock's Z-transform.

::::: The quality and reliability of data is proportional to sample size, and when different studies are combined they need to be weighted accordingly. The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done. That's basic logic, though I'm not optimistic that you or Lenski will admit it. Open-minded people who respect logic have no difficulty elevating logic over personal whim.-[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy if you read Whitlock's paper you would see it say, and I quote, "Ideally each study is weighted proportional to the inverse of its error variance, that is, by the '''reciprocal of its squared standard error'''." It says nothing about weighting according to sample size, which is what you seem to be insisting should be done.
::::::Also Whitlock acknowledges in the paper that there is no preference for weighted versus equal weighting, so the fact that both equal weighting and weighting by the standard error give a statistically significant result shows that the 3 experiments combined support rejection of the null hypothesis. [[User:DanB|DanB]] 20:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::ASchlafly, you state that I incorrectly apply "Whitlock's Z-transform" (actually the test belongs to Mosteller & Bush<ref>Mosteller, F. & Bush, R.R. 1954. Selected quantitative techniques. In: ''Handbook of Social Psychology,'' Vol. 1 (G. Lindzey, ed.)</ref> and/or Liptak<ref>Liptak, T. 1958. On the combination of tests. ''Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutato Int. Kozl.'' '''3''': 171-197</ref>). Whitlock describes weighting by the reciprocal of the squared standard error. The standard error of the mean is proportional to 1/sqrt(N), so the reciprocal of the squared standard error is proportional to N. Thus larger studies ''are'' given more weight. I maintain that the sample sizes N of the three replays are 4, 5, and 8 respectively. Weighting based on those three N does not weight all three replays equally as you claim: it gives replay 2 25% more weight and replay 3 100% more weight than replay 1. Rather than simply repeating that I am wrong, will you please state what ''you'' think the sample sizes of the three replay experiments are, and, in your opinion, what the ''correct'' application of the Z-transformation would be?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: The Lenski paper states how it weighted the experiments, and that weighting is incorrect. Admit it. Moreover, the incorrect weighting in the Lenski paper was not likely an inadvertent error, as it inflated the significance of the results. I found the wording used by the Lenski paper to describe its (incorrect) weighting to be artfully misleading.

:::::::: Provide me with federal funding as Lenski received, and I'll write a paper for you. But I don't have to write an alternative paper to point out glaring errors in Lenski's paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: I've been following this discussion for a while and I have to agree with ASchlafly. It hardly seems fair that he should have to, in his spare time, replicate an experiment done by a professional just to "earn" the right to criticize it. I am unfamiliar with statistics, but if some complicated transform goes against common sense, common sense should prevail. After all, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 10:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)I'm not asking anyone to write a paper or replicate an experiment. I'm asking ASchlafly to support his statement "The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, '''as you and Lenski have done'''"(bolding mine). I have stated publicly, subject to challenge by others, that the sample sizes (n) of the three replays are four, five, and eight respectively. Furthermore, using n of 4, 5, and 8 in the weighted Z-method DOES NOT weight all the replay experiments equally - it weights replay 3 twice as much as replay 1 and 8/5 as much as replay 2. Tell you what: I'll drop all my questions about Monte Carlo and the Z-transform, and simply ask ASchlafly one question: '''what is the sample size, n, of the second replay experiment?''' He need not even do any calculations - a statement in words that will allow someone else to do the calculation will suffice. This is not a complicated question to answer; the paper states how many replicate cultures there were (340), how many cells there were in each replicate (3.9x10^8), how many replicates gave rise to Cit+ cells (5), and which generations those Cit+ replicates came from (4 from 32,000 and one from 32,500). I will even give ''my'' answer: '''five'''. Furthermore, I will say ''why'' I believe that, using the murderer/age analogy: performing the 340 replicates is the same as interviewing 340 people in order to find out if any of them are convicted murderers. Finding that five replicates gave rise to Cit+ mutants is the same as the survey finding that 5 of those 340 people were convicted murderers. Finding that the Cit+ mutants arose from 4 replicates from generation 32,000 and 1 from generation 32,500 is the same as finding the ages of the murderers. The five data points in the Lenski study allow one to calculate the 'mean generation of clones yielding Cit+': 32,100. This is the same as finding the mean age of the five murderers. If I want to compare this hypothetical murderer age study to some other study of the mean age of murderers, I would weight the studies based on how many murderers were in each study, not on how many non-murderers were included in the initial survey.

Surely ASchlafly can say ''what'' he thinks the n of the second replay is, even if he won't say ''why'' he thinks it. Is it five? 340? The number of replicates times the number of cells per replicate? Something else? No analysis need be performed on the resulting number.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

:OK - would you care to put in writing that after ASchlafly gives you his response, you won't start obfuscating the issue with Monte Carlo and Z-transform issues? You understand: it is typical of liberals to, after being proven wrong, to start pretending that they were talking about an entirely different issue altogether. '''After ASchlafly states the sample size of the second replay experiment you will consider yourself answered.''' Correct?

:Brossa, your rant is misplaced. One cannot salvage an error in logic by questioning which of superior alternatives should be used instead. The sample size of an experiment is the number that comprises the underlying sample used in the experiment, not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment. Maybe you can debate yourself over what the correct underlying sample size is, but it is plainly not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Hey, I may not have expertise in statistics, but I read this one report by someone who does:

"

=== ''Not'' confirmed ===

Like Kennymac and Longstop, I have some qualifications in this area because I have taught statistics to researchers (not mathematicians) - actually for even longer than Kennymac. I've read the contribution from Longstop and I've decided that the best thing I can do is to replace it in its entirety because it makes the point quite well. (Actually both points - the statistical point and the one about reviewing scientific papers.) But my qualifications are really unimportant - as Longstop said, it doesn't matter who says something in science, it's '''what''' they say that matters. After all, the most important discoveries in science in the 20th century were made by a patent clerk who wasn't an academic at the time and hadn't even been a particularly outstanding student.

The rest of this posting is cut-and-pasted from Longstop's contribution earlier this week.

'''''Start of quote''''' The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.

The point that ASchlafly makes (headed '''REPLY''', shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.

The issue of whether to weight the Z-test according to sample size is not a straightforward issue. Before Whitlock's recent paper, the consensus was that the P-value already depends on sample size so it should not be weighted according to sample size. (Basically, a high degree of significance, i.e. a low P-value, can be achieved by having either a large difference between the treatments or a large experiment or, of course, both.) Whitlock's work, based on computer simulations, is an interesting contribution but cannot be regarded as the last word on the subject because any computer simulation involves assumptions about the structure of the particular experiment simulated. I cannot imagine any editor of a scientific journal rejecting a paper because it used an unweighted Z-test rather than the weighted version (or vice-versa).

The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data.

On a different point, please would CP readers note that there's nothing at all suspicious about a paper being peer-reviewed in only 14 days. Editors of scientific journals ask reviewers beforehand if they are free to edit a paper within a certain period of time. If an academic agrees to review a paper for a prestigious journal such as PNAS within 2 weeks, they will generally ensure they have time during that period to read and comment on the paper thoroughly. '''''End of quote'''''
"

Source is here - [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=538133&oldid=538051]]
Seems pretty interesting, does anybody want to respond? [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 09:41, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

<references/>

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-25T16:48:43Z

JohnyGoodman: /* I could not help but notice */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::No, his post has 119 words. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 09:44, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Your claim is based on the fact that since statistical averages indicate that on the whole, boys perform in math better than girls, that tenet holds for the individuals. This is the Part-whole fallacy: it is akin to saying "The clock is big, therefore the clock's parts are big". By this logic, it is impossible to climb Mt. Everest, because statistically, most people don't.
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I disagree that schools teach the belief that suicide can somehow be good. This is taught by misguided peers, not educators. Suicide is actively discouraged, even in the most liberal settings. A possible exception might be jihad schools, which are known to be ultra-fundamentalist radical Islam. Also, if classroom prayer promoted mental stability, why is it that those who pray alone by choice are just as vulnerable to mental illness? I myself always prayed silently before meals, but yet was diagnosed as bipolar. As has been the case with many with the illness, its onset was in college.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 15:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

: Praying silently to one's self, and only before meals, can be nearly inconsequential. The real benefit is from public prayer in churches, classrooms, meetings, etc.

: Judging by your other postings, I think you've taken in liberal ideology and that does have consequences. There's no real concept of self-defense, which is essential to fend off mental problems; there's a degradation of the view of humans to the point of where they mean little more than dogs, and that affects self-esteem; and there's no emphasis on self-help, which hurts further. In fact, the list is quite long for how liberal ideology leads to mental illness. Wake up to it while you still can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

::Can you expand on why you feel that praying silently to one's self can be "nearly inconsequential", and that the real benefit is in public prayer? That seems to contradict Matthew 6, but I want to understand your views on this better. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::I am surprised you assume that I was "only" praying before meals. In college, I went to a Christian University where Chapel attendance was mandatory and group prayer was encouraged, but it did not stop mental illness from developing in college. I did develop some liberal ideas, but that was after I developed mental illness, not before. I was raised Christian, and was into Wicca for awhile, (this was after I'd graduated from college) which primarily benefited me by emphasizing personal responsibility and choice for my own actions, rather than blaming evil and Satan for everything that went wrong. Moreover, Wicca does indeed allow for self-defense, unlike some brands of Christianity, which teach to "turn the other cheek". It is probably telling that the part I studied most when I was in Wicca was the part about psychic self-defense. Prayer, by the way, is also considered by Wiccans and pagans to be a form of magic, since it raises and directs energy for a purpose. I did go to a public high school, and the teachers there did not teach many of the things that this article claims they teach. These "secular liberal teachings" seem to me to be the product of peer teachings, not educator teachings. By the way, remember perfect love casts out fear.[[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Bugler just reverted my edits to add factual context and supporting statements to those which are obviously controversial on this talk page. All I did was add the <nowiki>{{facts}}</nowiki> template to those statements supposedly taught at schools, and was "rewarded" with complaints of "vandalism". I would like to see supporting evidence showing that those statements are indeed taught by educators, as opposed to clueless peers. These peers are just as present and teach just the same things in Christian and Catholic schools (so I hear from comparing notes with graduates of those schools), inside AND OUTSIDE of school. Trying to keep negative peer teachings out is kind of like trying to keep kids from smoking in or out of school. Some clueless idiots will often find a way to do it, including disabling smoke alarms, or cutting class and wandering across the street. [[User:Userafw|Userafw]] 19:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

:So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or '''anything else'''), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)
How can someone come to such a delusional position as the left wing? Mental illness, poor childhood and so on is the only real reason why they would take up an atheist leftwing viewpoint. (See the article on causes of atheism). Also, if someone is involved in the left wing they will undoubtedly become affected by all the delusional viewpoints imposed on them. So being a left winger is probably a pretty good explanation for mental illness. If you're left wing then you'll become mentally ill, if you're mentally ill you'll become left wing. How can anyone challenge that logic? Only if they're a delusional mentally ill ideologically blinded disruptive leftist radical of course.

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Franklin D. Roosevelt

2008-09-25T16:37:23Z

JohnyGoodman:

{{President
|image=509px-FDR in 1933.jpg
|seq=32
|term_start=March 4, 1933
|term_end=April 12, 1945
|party=Democratic
|vp= John N. Garner
|vp_dates=1933-1941
|2vp=Henry A. Wallace
|2vp_dates=1941-1945
|3vp=Harry Truman
|3vp_dates=1945
|4vp=
|4vp_dates=
|previous=Herbert Hoover
|next=Harry Truman
|seq2=
|term2_start=
|term2_end=
|party2=
|vp2=
|vp2dates=
|2vp2=
|2vp2dates=
|3vp2=
|3vp2dates=
|4vp2=
|4vp2dates=
|previous2=
|next2=
|birth_date=January 30, 1882
|birth_place=Hyde Park, New York
|death_date=April 12, 1945
|death_place=Warm Springs, Georgia
|spouse=[[Eleanor Roosevelt]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Episcopalian]]
}}

'''Franklin Delano Roosevelt''' was the 32nd [[President of the United States of America]], and is most often recalled in association with his [[socialist]] [[New Deal]] economic policies and his leadership during most of the [[Second World War]]. He was the first and only President to be elected four times, exceeding the traditional two-term-limit precedent established by [[George Washington]]. A [[Democrat]], Roosevelt was first elected due to the crisis of the [[Great Depression]], a severe economic depression that continued throughout the 1930's. A [[Republican]] Congress subsequently passed the [[22nd Amendment]] to prevent anyone from serving more than two full terms, as Roosevelt had.

On April 12, 1945, Franklin D. Roosevelt died of a cerebral hemorrhage, due partly to the crippling [[disease]], [[polio]]myelitis, which physically disabled him during his presidency.<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/fr32.html</ref>

Although Mr. Roosevelt was very popular, it has been argued by scholars and analysts then and now that many [[New Deal]] relief efforts actually helped to prolong the [[Great Depression]]. Mr. Roosevelt started the second wave of the massive expansion of the Federal Government and greatly increased American foreign aid. Some of these policies were coupled with a persistent high level of unemployment in the 1930s.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/printable.html</ref>
However, the Depression ended when government spending increased during [[World War II]] as military spending pumped money into the economy. Programs such as FDIC were created to increase financial stability and reduce the risk of another [[Great Depression]].

In 1937, Roosevelt proposed "packing" the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] so that he could enact more government controls over the economy. But even [[Democrats]] were outraged at his power grab, and Roosevelt never enjoyed his past political power again. However, the Court's subsequent ''Wickard'' decision increased the President's powers under the [[Commerce Clause]].

Roosevelt's [[Lend-Lease Act]] authorized arming Britain and the Soviet Union even before [[Pearl Harbor]] was attacked by [[Japan]]. It was the Pearl Harbor attack that ended anti-war isolationism in the U. S. The result was island hopping attacks against Japan, followed by war against fascists in North Africa, and then victory in [[Europe]] after a D-Day ([[Operation Overlord]]) attack on Germany from France in conjunction with Red Army attacks on Germany from the East.

From his second term the people were told that Roosevelt was the only man who could keep the US out of war. Later, it was asserted that he was the only man who could successfully fight the war that which he alone could keep the US out of. Then it was said that he was the only man who was capable of facing [[Josef Stalin]] on equal terms. Finally, he was said to be the only man who could guarantee against the ruthlessness of Stalin in the post-war era. However, Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945, which was four months before the war ended with Japan's surrender on August 15, 1945.

==Early life==
Franklin Roosevelt studied law at Columbia University where he failed to graduate. Secretary of Labor [[Frances Perkins]], the first woman ever appointed to a cabinet post and knew FDR from his early manhood up to his death, says he was not a student, that he knew nothing of economics and that he admitted he had never read a book on the subject. <ref>''The Roosevelt I Knew,'' Frances Perkins, New York, Viking Press, 1946. p. 34.</ref>

== Election of 1932 ==

The Democrats made Government non-intervention under the Hoover administration an issue in the campaign of 1932, charging that Hoover's laissez faire approach was not working. After Roosevelt had taken office, former Democratic New York Governor Al Smith, saw Roosevelt's ultimately expansive policies as a departure from the ideals of Conservatives and supported Republican candidates in subsequent elections.

While the Democrats were damning Hoover as a big spender, at the same time he was refusing to be drawn into big spending, the Democratic House passed a bill appropriating $1,500,000,000 for old-fashioned [[pork-barrel]] outlays.

Because of Hoover's hesitance to utilize government spending to bail the nation out of the depression, he became incredibly unpopular, paving the way for Roosevelt's landslide victory in the presidential election of 1932, winning 472 electoral votes (nearly 90% of the total) and 22,800,000 popular votes (57% of the total) to defeat incumbent president Herbert Hoover.<ref>1932 Presidential Election Results http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1932</ref> He was running primarily on the platform that he would help the country recover from the Great Depression with his New Deal.

== First Term ==
===Foreign policy===

On November 16, 1933, when the Roosevelt administration granted diplomatic recognition to the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics]], the USSR pledged itself to refrain "from interfering in any manner in the internal affairs of the United States." This occurred three weeks after the founding of the [[Comintern]] affiliated [[American League for Peace and Democracy]]. The process of Communist “influence” in American life was accelerated. This “influence,” as described by [[Communist party]] defector [[Louis Budenz]], was to “infiltrate key government posts, undermine the patriotism of well meaning people in strategic or confidential positions, and win over those whose words, spoken and written, have an effect on American [[public opinion]];” it was checked “partially during the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact|Hitler-Stalin alliance]], it went all out in the course of the [[Second World War]]."<ref>Men Without Faces, The Communist Conspiracy in the U. S. A., By Louis Budenz, New York Harper & Brothers, 1950, [http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=//PDFsml_AD/Men_Without_Faces-Louis_Francis_Budenz-1950-315pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=238&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 pg. 2] pdf.</ref>

Numerous [[Attorney General's list|Comintern affiliate]] organizations sprung up in the ensuing years, including the [[American Youth Congress]] in 1934 and the [[League of American Writers]] in 1935. [[KGB]] officers traveled the country in the guise of diplomatic and consular officials, conducting [[espionage]] activities <ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/10.gif Anonymous letter to Hoover], undated (received 7 August 1943), National Security Agency Venona Collection. "[[SEMENOV]] works in AMTORG, is robbing the whole of the war industry in America. SEMENOV has his agents in all the industrial towns of the U.S.A., in all aviation and chemical war factories and in big industries."</ref> freely and offering bribes.

On February 28, 1934, Elliott Roosevelt, son of the President, and [[Anthony Fokker]] each received half a million dollars for selling fifty military aircraft to the Soviet government. <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,756770-2,00.html ''Son's Scheme''], Time magazine, Oct. 19, 1936,</ref>

===New Deal===
:''For Main Article see '''[[New Deal]].'''''
[[Image:Flatgrowth.JPG|thumb|300px|right|Real Output and Growth remained stagnant throughout the New Deal largely due to government involvement. The Depression came back with a vengeance in 1937-1938 because of the [[economic planner]]s over emphasis on consumption, and deemphasis and persecution of producers--the people who make the economy work. ''Source:New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression.''<ref>''New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis, ''Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian, Journal of Political Economy, volume 112 (2004), pages 779–816.</ref>]]
FDR is also famous for his [[New Deal]], a set of [[economic planning]] experiments that were instilled in the hope of ending the [[Great Depression]]. After many years, unemployment was finally brought down to reasonable levels as World War II began and the draft opened up more opportunties for people to move into the workforce. [[Economic growth]] was generally occurring, but the nation wasn't back on its feet until the war progressed.
Enforcement of the [[Anti-trust Act]] was considered as an essential instrument to prevent [[cartel]]s and trusts in restraint of trade which had been viewed as deadly to the system of [[free enterprise]]. On the campaign trail Roosevelt called loudly for its strict enforcement. Yet immediately upon Roosevelt's accession to office the Anti-trust Act was suspended in order to cartelize every industry in America on the Italian [[fascist]] corporative model. <ref>''The Roosevelt Myth'', John T. Flynn, Fox and Wilkes, 1948, Book 1, Chapter 4, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/cgi-bin/framed/2767/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Four___The_New_New_Deal.htm ''The New New Deal''].</ref> The National Recovery Act (NRA) and the [[Agricultural Adjustment Act]] (AAA) were plans to take the whole industrial and agricultural life of the country under the wing of the government, organize it into vast farm and industrial cartels, as they were called in Germany, cooperatives as they were called in Italy, and operate business and farms by economic planning schemes dictated and carried out under the supervision of government. It is also worth noting that World War II was total warfare on both sides. Even the Allied Powers such as the British took control of the nation's economy. Such intervention was very much necessary in order to gain every advantage possible against the enemy. Centralized planning allowed for greater efficiency, yet some civil liberties were suppressed in the effort. <ref>http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=420</ref>

The AAA reported to the Secretary of Agriculture but was independent of the Department of Agriculture bureaucracy. [[Harold Ware]] was a [[Communist Party USA]] (CPUSA) official in the AAA and founded the [[Ware group]]. The group consisted of young lawyers and economists, had about 75 members in 1934 and was divided into about eight cells. The AAA was later found [[unconstitutional]], but by that time the Communist operatives had established jobs in government employment. [[Alger Hiss]], [[Lee Pressman]], [[John Abt]], [[Charles Kramer]], [[Nathan Witt]], [[Henry Collins]], [[George Silverman]], [[Marion Bachrach]], [[John Herrmann]], [[Nathaniel Weyl]], [[Donald Hiss]] and [[Victor Perlo]] were all members of the Ware group. [[Harry Dexter White]], who was involved in the most auspicious policy [[subversion (political)|subversion]] as Director of the Division of Monetary Research in the [[Treasury Department]], was also affiliated with the group. The Ware group was the CPUSA's covert arm at this time. Each of these agents not only provided classified documents to Soviet intelligence, but was involved in political influence operations as well.

In 1934, a Congressional Investigation was held to examine statements by Dr. William A. Wirt, who headed the U.S. [[Department of Education|Office of Education]]. Dr. Wirt had attended a dinner party with several Brain Trusters at the home of his secretary, [[Alice Barrows]]. Barrows began working for the Office of Education in 1919 and was secretly a member of the [[Communist Party of the United States]] (CPUSA) which advocated the violent overthrow of the United States Constitution. Several of the Brain Trusters present at the dinner revealed to Wirt they were CPUSA members. Wirt testified,
{{Cquote|I was told they believe that by thwarting our then evident economic recovery, they would be able to prolong the country’s destitution until they had demonstrated to the American people that the Government must operate business and commerce. By propaganda, they would destroy institutions making long term capital loans—and then push Uncle Sam into making these loans. Once Uncle Sam becomes our financier, he must also follow his money with control and management. <ref>Hearings, House Select Committee To Investigate Certain Statements of Dr. William Wirt, 73rd Congress, 2nd Session, April 10 and 17, 1934. </ref><ref>''Dr Wirt faces the cameras and tells all'', Literary Digest v. 117 (April 21 1934) p. 7.</ref><ref>FBI Silvermaster file [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster053.pdf Volume 53 June 1946], p. 78 pdf.</ref>}}

A June 1945 [[Venona project]] decryption of Soviet [[KGB]] wartime cables from the Washington D.C. KGB Office to Moscow's Eighth Department, the political intelligence wing, relayed information on matters regarding Attorney General Francis Biddle. KGB agent [[Charles Kramer]], who served on the staff of several U.S. Senate Subcommittees, and Barrows are the sources of the information. <ref>Venona 3706 KGB Washington to Moscow, 29 June 1945.</ref> Mary Van Kleek who headed the Russell Sage Foundation and also served on the Board of the National Council, visited Washington weekly to meet with Barrows and [[Greg Silvermaster|Nathan Gregory Silvermaster]].

During [[World War II]] Barrows was the Executive Secretary of the the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship. This organization was declared in 1953 to be a [[Glossary_of_espionage_terms#Fronts_and_cutouts|Communist front]] organization by the [[Subversive Activities Control Board]] (SACB). In its Findings of Fact, the SACB said the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship,
{{Cquote|advances positions...markedly pro-Soviet and...anti-United States Government...is a Communist-action organization which has as its primary purpose to advance the objectives of the world Communist movement under the [[hegemony]] of the Soviet Union; it has the policy to support and defend the Soviet Union under any and all circumstances...We conclude that the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc., is substantially directed, dominated, and controlled by the Communist Party of the United States...and is primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid and support to...the Soviet Union, a Communist foreign government." <ref>United States. Subversive Activities Control Board. [http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=usfexec;cc=usfexec;q1=Barrows;rgn=full text;idno=81242.0001.001;didno=81242.0001.001;view=image;seq=511;page=root;size=s;endseq=3;frm=frameset Reports of the Subversive Activities Control Board.] Washington. United States Government Printing Office. 1966. Vol. 1, p. 501.</ref>}}

====Civilian Conservation Corps====
:''Main article [[Civilian Conservation Corps]]''

Soon after President Roosevelt's inauguration in March 1933, he announced the establishment of the CCC camps to take the boys off the street corners and out of the transient camps and to get money for their families. Of the New Deal innovations, perhaps the most generally applauded was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), adapted from German predecessors. That was a year after Hitler had coordinated all work camps under [[Nazi]] leadership. In 1934 the German university student organization voted that the work camps should be compulsory before matriculation and in 1935, Hitler decreed that the work camps be compulsory for both sexes. That same plan under the prompting of [[Harry Hopkins]] was announced by Roosevelt. <ref>''Getting Us into War'', Porter Sargent Publisher: P. Sargent, Boston, 1941. [http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Getting_Us_Into_War-Porter_Sargent-1941-640pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=218&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 In the Footsteps of Hitler], pg. 492 pdf</ref> Ralph Ingersoll's ''PM'' newspaper reported the President's statement that training in the conscript camps will remove those elements in the thinking of youth which makes them "critical of their elders." <ref>''PM'', June 20, 1940. "that training in the conscript camps will remove those elements in the thinking of our youth which makes them 'critical of their elders'...We should hold little hope for the future of any nation whose young people had ceased to be critical of their elders."</ref><ref>''American Youth'', Kenneth Holland, Harvard University Press, 1940, pg. 103. "As the camps and resident centers are established on a permanent basis they should be carefully integrated with educational, vocational, employment and adjustment activities of institutions already in existence. It is to be hoped that established schools and other training institutions in the United States will see in the [[labor camp]]s a new technique for providing youth with practical experience better adapted to its needs and interests than the present academic school courses."</ref>

===Social Security===
An Old Age Social Security Bill was passed during his first term which provided for workers who reach the age of 65 a pension of $8 a week at most. The plan had to be pushed through against his procrastination until finally in the 1934 congressional elections the Republicans denounced him for his tardiness. When he did finally consent to a bill, it contained a plan for building a huge reserve fund that would extract billions from the workers' payrolls without any adequate return. Over the protest of the President, the Congress finally took that provision proposed by Roosevelt out of the law. <ref> ''Roosevelt Myth'', Book 3, Chapter 14, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Fifteen___The_Roosevelt_.htm ''The Roosevelt Myth''], John T. Flynn, Fox and Wilkes, 1948.</ref>

===Taxation===

FDR, in a letter to journalist Roy W. Howard, wrote,
:"What is known as consumer taxes, namely the invisible taxes paid by people in every walk of life, fall relatively much more heavily upon the poor man than on the rich man." <ref>Franklin D. Roosevelt, letter to Roy W. Howard, September 2, 1935. </ref>

[[Robert H. Jackson]], then serving as [[Internal Revenue Service]] General Counsel, observed in Congressional testimony that prior to FDR’s election, "we find those taxes bearing most heavily on the well-to-do contributed 68% per cent of the government's total internal revenue and customs receipts, while miscellaneous taxes and customs receipts, bearing most heavily upon the consumer contributed only 31.8%” By 1935 the situation was reversed with “taxes based on ability to pay contributed 38.7% . . . there has been an increase in the proportion of revenues contributed by taxes on consumption to 61.3%."<ref>Testimony of Robert Jackson, Assistant General Counsel, Treasury Department, Committee on Finance, U . S. Senate, August 6, 1985.</ref>

===Economic growth===

New capital made available for investment amounted to $348,000,000 in 1935. This was less than 1/10th of the amount available in 1929. By contrast, the British economy had nearly recovered to its 1929 levels by 1935, and the amount available for investment was almost twice as much as the United States.

{| style="background:white; color:blue" border="1" class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! United States <ref>Standard Statistics Co., ''New Honey for Operating and Producing.''</ref>
! Great Britain <ref>Midland Bank, London, ''New Issues for British Companies,'' converted from £ to $ at $4.8665.</ref>
|-
| 1927
| $3,201,000,000
| $710,509,000
|-
| 1928
| 3,062,000,000
| 983,033,000
|-
| 1929
| 3,668,000,000
| 759,174,000
|-
| 1930
| 3,039,000,000
| 394,186,500
|-
| 1931
| 1,006,000,000
| 155,728,000
|-
| 1932
| 321,000,000
| 248,191,500
|-
| 1933
| 177,000,000
| 296,856,500
|-
| 1934
| 356,000,000
| 350,388,000
|-
| 1935
| 348,000,000
| 666,710,500
|-

|}

===Congress of Industrial Organizations===

By 1935 membership in labor unions had sunk to a low figure as a result of [[unemployment]]. There were men around the President at this time that saw the tremendous possibilities of organizing labor as a political force. An industrial union is one in which all the people engaged in a single industry are included without regard to the type of skills at which they work. The industrial union was the one great instrument by which all labor could be organized and the President was urged to promote this idea as the starting point in building up a powerful political labor movement. There were three large industrial unions at that time, [[John L. Lewis]]’s [[United Mine Workers]] (UMW), the International Ladies Garment Workers Union of David Dubinsky and the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of [[Sidney Hillman]].

Roosevelt tried to sell the plan to John L. Lewis of the UMW, and William Green, head of the American Federation of Labor (AFL). Green and the AFL opposed the idea of industrial unions and refused, but under the leadership of Lewis, a new group of unions was formed called the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). The Comintern directed [[Lee Pressman]] <ref>FBI Report, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster082.pdf Underground Soviet Espionage (NKVD) in Agencies of the United States Government], October 21, 1946, United States Government, pgs. 298 - 300 pdf. "Leon Pressman, alias Lee Pressman, served as General Counsel for the [[Agricultural Adjustment Administration]] from 1933 to 1935; in 1935 he was appointed General Counsel for the [[Works Progress Administration]]. In 1937 he was appointed to the General Counsel for the National [[Congress of Industrial Organizations]] (CIO). Pressman was also associated with various Communist front organizations. Pressman was a known contact of [[Anatoly Gorsky]], New York [[KGB]] Rezident, and KGB Agents [[Alger Hiss]] and [[Harry Dexter White]]. </ref> of the [[Ware group]] to assume the position of general counsel<ref>FBI Silvermaster file, [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster132.pdf Vol. 132, pg. 109] pdf. "Pressman is said to have run arms to Spain during the Civil War via Mexico and to have worked with General Mark Moren in the project. Moren was involved in the [[Rubens Robinson]] passport case in 1938." See also Underground Espionage Agent, Adolf Berle notes, September 2, 1939. [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page100.html]</ref><ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,789421,00.html ''32,000 & Mrs. Rubens''], Time magazine, Feb. 07, 1938. "In the first years of the Soviet Union, to escape from Russia was difficult and dangerous. Today it has become almost impossible, an attempt tantamount to suicide. Barbed and electrically charged wire, searchlight-equipped watch towers. 24-hour frontier patrols aided by bloodhounds and police dogs guard every mile of border. .... Weak from [[scurvy]] and [[dysentery]], Konarski told correspondents: 'The camp contains about 32,000 prisoners. They are kept there until [[death]] results from hard work, bad food and consequent sickness. I met two [[American citizen]]s in the camp, Arthur Hanley, a chemical engineer from California, and Edward Rose, a machinist from Boston, Mass. They said they came to Russia in 1921 as volunteer workers. Rose said he was [[arrest]]ed in Leningrad in 1923. Hanley was caught trying to escape from Russia to Latvia in 1925. Each was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, but, although they have served out their sentences, they are still being held. They told me they know of three other native-born Americans who are held prisoner in other Soviet camps.'...Mrs. Ruth Marie Rubens (alias Robinson), one U. S. citizen officially known to be in jail in Moscow (TIME, Dec. 27 [1938]). In Moscow on December 9 able, active U. S. Charge d'Affaires Loy W. Henderson learned that Mrs. Rubens had "disappeared"' from the big Hotel National next door to the U.S. Embassy. On January 18 the Soviet Foreign Office finally admitted that Mrs. Rubens was under arrest, failed to say on what charge.... hundreds of Germans are today in Soviet jails and for years German diplomatic & consular officials have not been allowed to see them."</ref> where he became known as "Comrade Big." The year 1936 was a period of furious organizing work by it among the unskilled workers of the country. As Lewis, Dubinsky, and Hillman set about organizing millions of workers they were immediately up against the problem of finding skilled organizers to promote and manage the new unions.

There had been in the United States a [[Communist]] labor organization known as the Trade Union Unity League which took its instructions directly from [[Moscow]]. It is estimated that ten or fifteen thousand Communists were in these unions. In 1934, Moscow directed the Communist party in the United States to dissolve the Trade Union Unity League unions and to march the members of those unions into the American Federation of Labor. The purpose was not to advance the cause of labor unions or to get better working conditions for the members, but to use the apparatus of the labor union as an instrument of [[revolution]]. The Communist leaders saw in the rise of the CIO a better opportunity for their own revolutionary objectives than in the AFL and instructed their members to withdraw from the AFL and go into the CIO where they achieved disproportionate influence. <ref>''The Soviet World of American Communism'', Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Kyrill M. Anderson, Yale University Press, 1998, Document 13, pp. 58-68. ISBN 0-300-07150-7. </ref>

Lewis was interested in bringing into existence industrial unions like his own, in which he had always believed. Roosevelt was interested in bringing into American labor unions as many voters as possible and in capturing their leadership to build a powerful labor faction which could control the Democratic party and which he and his allies could control through the vast power of the government and the vast powers of labor leaders, along with the immense financial resources that so great a labor movement would have. The Communists were interested in getting into key positions as union officers, statisticians, economists, etc., in order to utilize the apparatus of the unions to promote the cause of revolution. By the early part of 1938, over three million workers had been organized. Lewis was later to split with FDR. <ref>''Communists and the CIO: From the Soviet archives'', Harvey Klehr and John E. Haynes, Labor History, Volume 35, Issue 3 Summer 1994 , pages 442 - 446. [http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a772103056~db=all?tab=references]</ref><ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,788129-4,00.html ''Turning Point?''], Time magazine, Monday, Jul. 12, 1937.</ref>

== Second Term ==

{{Cquote|Planning will become a function of the federal government; either that or the planning agency will supercede the government, which is why, of course, such a scheme will be assimilated to the State. <ref>''The Principle of Planning and the Institution of Laissez Faire,'' Rexford G. Tugwell, The American Economic Review, vol. 22, no. 1, March 1932. [http://www.bartleby.com/73/147.html]</ref>}}

On August 13, 1938, John P. Frey, president of the Metal Trades Department of the AFL, appeared before the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]]. Frey, in a presentation lasting several days, laid before the Committee a complete documented account of CPUSA penetration of the CIO. He gave the names of 280 organizers in CIO unions under salary who were CPUSA members. He charged that John Brophy who was the director of the CIO, was expelled by the United Mine Workers some years before for disloyal activities and while he was not directly a CPUSA member, he was assisted in his work by two active members of the Party. He had gone to Russia as a member of a delegation sponsored by the Party and approved by Moscow and when he returned the UMW accused him of being a paid agent of the Soviet government. Brophy at a meeting said that the condition of workers in the Soviet Union "should be a source of inspiration to workers in America."

Frey named union after union in the CIO, giving names of the Communists who were holding positions of leadership and trust. He charged, for instance, that they dominated the United Office and Professional Workers Union, that the president of that organization was a CPUSA member and through that organization they had infiltrated the government with numerous Party members in almost all the bureaus in Washington.

[[Thomas Corcoran]] <ref>After World War II Corcoran employed Soviet agent [[Duncan Lee]] in his Washington law firm, Corcoran and Youngman. FBI Silvermaster file biographical details on [[Duncan C. Lee]], [[Elizabeth Bentley]]'s allegations concerning him, his contacts with [[Donald Wheeler]] and [[Mary Price]], [http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster092.pdf Vol. 92, pgs. 20 - 21] pdf, January 26, 1947. On June 6 1945, 6 persons, including U.S. government officials [[Andrew Roth]] and [[John Stewart Service]], were arrested on [[conspiracy]] and [[espionage]] charges related to possession of roughly 1000 stolen classified Government documents in the offices of ''[[Amerasia]]'' magazine. ''Amerasia'', edited by [[Philip J. Jaffe]], had published classified materials verbatim from the United States wartime intelligence service, the [[Office of Strategic Services]] (OSS). ''Amerasia's'' chief financial benefactor was [[Frederick V. Field]]. [[Joseph Milton Bernstein]], a [[GRU]] contact between Soviet agents in the OSS and the [[Board of Economic Warfare]], was also an employee. Others connected with the ''Amerasia'' scandal were [[T.A. Bisson]] and [[Owen Lattimore]]. Corcoran worked with the [[Truman administration]] to cover up the scandal.</ref> moved from the [[Reconstruction Finance Corporation]] to the White House and was instrumental in securing numerous appointments for friends and colleagues to [[New Deal]] agencies. Eventually he was pushed out in favor of [[Harry Hopkins]] for the position of Roosevelt's right-hand man.

===Court packing plan===

Tommy Corcoran was given the task by Roosevelt to persuade Congress to pass the proposed legislation. [[I. F. Stone]] of the ''New York Post'', who later was to agree to work for the [[KGB]], wrote speeches for Corcoran on this issue.

===Crash of 1937===

When FDR was inaugurated for his second term [[national income]], [[payroll]]s, and [[industrial production]] <ref>League of Nations Monthly Bulletin of Statistics, June, 1936. Percentage change 1929 to March 1936, United States -21.8%, rank number 13.</ref> were still 20 per cent below the 1929 figure and construction was still only about one third what it had been in 1929 when the nation had a booming economy due to massive speculation that would ultimately lead to the stock market crash. By June, 1937 the Treasury boasted relief payments were less than in the same period the preceding year. But this was not so. The Treasury made a practice of cooking the books and producing phony numbers. It merely shifted relief payments to other accounts. They were, in fact, larger than the year before. Stock prices declined and by September the reality could be no longer hidden. By the end of October the market crashed. The budget was running a [[deficit]] at the time $300,000,000 a month.

[[Robert H. Jackson]], Assistant Attorney General, and Secretary of the Interior [[Harold Ickes]] in December made speeches inspired by the President on the [[conspiratorial]] ''America's 60 Families.'' <ref>''New Deal Chorus'', Time magazine, [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758849-1,00.html pg. 1][http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758849-2,00.html pg. 2], Jan. 17, 1938.</ref> In January, John D. Biggers staggered the administration with a report Roosevelt had commissioned that stated there were 10,870,000 people out of work. <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,758790,00.html ''Two Schemes''], Time magazine, Jan. 10, 1938.</ref> Roosevelt realized that all the “pump priming” and spending $17 billion had failed. Despite the billions added to the debt, the Depression was back. He was now at the center of a tug-of-war with advocates of spending like [[Harry Hopkins]], [[Leon Henderson]] and [[Rex Tugwell]] on one side, and opponents like [[Henry Morgenthau]] on the other. DNC Chairman [[Jim Farley]] reports he had a talk on the subject with Roosevelt on March 28, 1938.

FDR told Farley he would have "to go in for pump priming or relief," then Roosevelt confessed to a difficulty that is little understood: what could he spend on? There is only a limited number of things which the federal government can spend. The federal government can build schools, hospitals, roads, institutions of all sorts. But they are built in cities, counties, states and the activities which go on in these buildings are within the jurisdiction of the states. And the continuing perpetual maintainance of such things, like payroll, is the in the purview of the states. The federal government can spend money on agricultural experimentation, on scientific research, on national parks, on power dams, etc. But in the end the outlays on these things are limited. The one big thing the federal government can spend money on is the army and navy. Roosevelt explained to Farley that he could not spend on local projects because the states and cities did not want any more buildings and institutions which they would have to support. They were having trouble enough paying the bills of those already built. Roosevelt revealed to Farley that many [[WPA]] projects approved by the government were abandoned because the states and cities could not raise the money to support them. In the 1938 Congressional elections Harry Hopkins was spending as fast as he could without any regard to utility to meet the immediate political necessities of an election but couldn't go on indefinitely. And the whole problem was complicated by pressure from within his own party to balance the budget.

The country now reached a greater crisis than in 1933. The public debt, which was $22 billion when Roosevelt took office and was a heritage of [[World War I]], now was $37 billion. Taxes had been more than doubled by Roosevelt. By April 1938 unemployment reached several thousand more than when Roosevelt was elected in 1932. This was not Hoover’s Depression but Roosevelt’s Depression. Voices began to speak up suggesting after all Hoover may have known what he was doing, but here, nine years after the Depression began the fundamental condition of the country was no further advanced than it was at the end of Hoover's three year struggle with it.

Making provision for war increased business profits. In 1936 Roosevelt had said, "If we face the choice of profits or peace, the nation will answer – must answer - 'We choose peace'. It is the duty of all of us to encourage such a body of public opinion in this country that the answer will be clear." <ref>''Getting Us into War'', Porter Sargent Publisher: P. Sargent, Boston, 1941. [http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Getting_Us_Into_War-Porter_Sargent-1941-640pgs-POL.sml.pdf&id=218&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 ''No More Millionaires''], pg. 372 pdf</ref> By 1938 Roosevelt embarked on a massive defense appropriations buildup; the Administration would advance 30% to a defense contractor when placing an order. The National City Bank reported an increase of overall business profits in the year 1939 over 1938 of 63.6%, and in its December 1940 Bulletin showed for 284 companies "directly affected by war and defense program" a rise of 79.2%. The ''Wall Street Journal'' reported, "Betterment in profits was naturally more pronounced, as a rule, in those industries benefiting directly or indirectly from the European conflict." <ref>''Wall Street Journal'', May 3, 1940.</ref>

[[Curtiss-Wright Aircraft]], to enlarge its plant, received a loan of $92 million at 4%. [[I. F. Stone]] of ''[[The Nation]]'' magazine wrote,
:"Offered as a non-recourse loan . . . the government would have no claim against the Wright company if it failed to repay the loan. All the government could do in that case would be to take the factory. Since the plant would be financed entirely by the government, the government would really be taking back its own property if the Wright company for some reason wanted to drop it. ...The ''Wall Street Journal'' reported on August 2 that while the loan was for $92,000,000, 'the cost of the proposed plant and its equipment is understood to be only $37,000,000 or $38,000,000'. When asked by the ''Journal'' correspondent about 'this apparent discrepancy', Jesse Jones said, 'We don't believe it would be in the public interest to break down that total at this time'....As this is being written, the Wright contract has yet to be signed. The company is now asking for five-year amortization instead of eight. Incidentally, a vice-president of this finicky company, T. P. Wright, was assigned to the Defense Commission on June 8 to help speed up production"
The Defense Commission was the same commission that would determine and approve the terms of the loan.<ref>''Getting Us into War'', Sargent, 1941, pg. 433.</ref> ''PM'' noted "For an $18,000,000 plant to command a $92,000,000 credit from any bank, including a federal one, may make financiers blink, but that is what has been arranged". The Curtiss-Wright loan was only a little over five times the value of the plant. But Boeing Aircraft, with a plant worth $3,000,000 was awarded a loan of $32,000,000, more than ten times. And Boeing was to own it in five years.<ref>Roger Ingersoll, ''PM'', August. 9, 1940.</ref>

== Third Term ==

It is fairly certain that early in 1939, if not a little sooner, FDR made up his mind to seek a third election in the [[United States presidential election, 1940|presidential election of 1940]]. FDR realized the political difficulties involved in a third nomination so he wanted to make it appear as a "draft Roosevelt" movement. He discussed other candidates with his aids, among the names were Democratic National Committee Chairman [[James Farley]], whom FDR rejected because he was [[Roman Catholic]]. The name of Paul McNutt was urged; FDR was angry McNutt would even permit his name to be discussed. FDR told Farley: "I consider it bad taste on his part to be letting his name be used when he is still a member of my administration." Roosevelt sent him as High Commissioner to the Philippines and jokingly asked: "Is that far enough?"<ref>''The Roosevelt Myth'', Book 1, Ch. 6, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Seven___The_Third_Term.htm ''The Third Term''], John T. Flynn, Fox and Wilkes, 1948.</ref> Historian [[Doris Kearns Goodwin]] in her book ''No Ordinary Time'' explored the decision to seek a third time and concludes FDR probably decided to enter the war at the same time he decided to run again, although he was politically unable to enter the war until the [[Japanese]] [[attack on Pearl Harbor]].

Administrative Assistants to Roosevelt included [[James Forrestal]], [[Lauchlin Currie]]<ref>Committee on Un-American Activities, "The Shameful Years: Thirty Years of Soviet Espionage in the United States," 82d Congress, 2d Session, 1951, pp. 15-17; [http://www.counterintelligencetraining.com/BK/ci_centre_bibliography.htm Required Reading List for Counterintelligence, Counterterrorism, Intelligence and Security Professionals,]The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Alexandria, VA.</ref> and [[David K. Niles]]. Their function was "to get, information and to condense and summarize it for [Roosevelt's] use." <ref>''Roosevelt and Hopkins : An Intimate History'', Robert E. Sherwood, New York Harper and Brothers, 1948, [http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Roosevelt_and_Hopkins-An_Intimate_History-Robert_E_Sherwood-1948-1034pgs-GOV-POL.sml.pdf&id=252&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 pg. 226] pdf.</ref> Forrestal later was to jump from a 16th story window of Bethesda Naval Hospital psychiatric ward. <ref>''The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed the Jewish People'', John Loftus and Mark Aarons, New York : St.Martin's Press, 1994. [http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/vegyes_/secretwar_06.rtf]</ref> Currie and Niles were to be found working for the [[KGB]].<ref>''Uncovering Stalin's Spies'' Julius W. Friend, International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, (2000) Vol. 13 No. 3, pgs. 381 - 384. [http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/index/UN1VH8U16UMXEFGF.pdf]</ref><ref>[http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00039.cfm ''The Venona Story''], Robert L. Benson, Center for Cryptological History, National Security Agency. One of the special reports issued in July 1948 (1948 was a presidential election year) gives the earliest translation found that mentions friends of [[David Niles]], an important advisor to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, "will arrange anything for a bribe." Venona message 786 New York KGB to Moscow, 1 June 1944, [http://www.nsa.gov/venona/releases/01_Jun_1944_R3_m1_p1.gif pg. 1], [http://www.nsa.gov/venona/releases/01_Jun_1944_R3_m1_p2.gif pg. 2]).</ref> Currie alerted his KGB controllers that "the United States was on the verge of breaking the Soviet code."<ref>''The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors'', Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, Washington, DC, Regnery, 2000, [http://books.google.com/books?id=mVpWH51F7toC&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=lauchlin+currie+break+code&source=web&ots=Yj2NHYwgxB&sig=sbZ3789Tz0jd7xPRiC6EEdeuJ48 pg. 27.] Herbert Romerstein was the Chief, Office to Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures, U.S. Information Agency from (1983-1989), Staff member, U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (1978-1983), and Minority Chief Investigator, House Committee on Internal Security (1971-1975). [http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/facultyID.9/profile.asp]</ref>

=== Commander in Chief ===

[[John P. Davies]] was assigned to Gen. [[Joseph Stilwell]] as Stilwell's adviser in China. Hopkins made a note at the time: "The President indicated his strong dissatisfaction with the way the whole show was running in China. He stated that Stillwell obviously hated the Chinese and that his cablegrams are sarcastic about the Chinese and this feeling is undoubtedly known to the Generalissimo."<ref>Roosevelt and Hopkin, Sherwood, pg. 739.</ref> Roosevelt and Hopkins biographer [[Robert Sherwood]] wrote that Gen. [[George C. Marshall]] told Hopkins his only serious disagreement with
Hopkins was on the issue of Stilwell. Sherwood adds that "he was unquestionably a serious nuisance to Roosevelt and there were many times when he was on the verge of recalling him."<ref> Roosevelt and Hopkin, Sherwood, pg. 740.</ref>

Roosevelt was determined to help [[England]] against [[Germany]] and at one point [[Winston Churchill]] even moved into the [[White House]] while [[Britain]] was at war. Roosevelt said in May 1941: "You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does ... I may have one policy for Europe and one diametrically opposite for North and South America. I may be entirely inconsistent, and furthermore I am perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help win the war."<ref>http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/05/deception_for_country_not_for.html</ref>

On May 19, 1942, pressured by Communist union officials of the American Communications Association, [[CIO]], Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, informed Rear Admiral Adolphus Staton that Communist radio operators were not to be removed from their ships. Less than six months earlier, Congress, with the lone dissenting vote of [[Vito Marcantonio]], enacted Public Law 351, which authorized the Secretary of the Navy to have all radio operators with a [[subversion (political)|subversive]] background taken off their ships. Rear Admiral Staton had recommended the removal of a number of Communists. In the presence of Rear Admiral S. C. Hooper and others, Knox instructed Rear Admiral Staton "that, in the opinion of the President, membership or suspected membership in the CPUSA was not sufficient to deprive a radio operator of his job." <ref>''America's Tragedy-Today'', Major Hamilton A. Long, (NY: Post Printing), pgs. 15-25.</ref> Expounding a memorandum bearing President Roosevelt's initials, Knox brushed aside the objections of Staton and Hooper, declaring that the order came from the President himself. Because the presidential command defied the law of the land, it was not put into writing. Consequently, the Communist radio operators returned to their ships and Rear Admirals Hooper and Staton were put on the inactive list.

Stalin publicly disbanded the [[Comintern]] in 1943. A Moscow message to all stations on 12 September 1943, message number 142, relating to this event is one of the most interesting and historically important messages <ref>[http://www.nsa.gov/venona/venon00008.cfm Venona 142(a) Moscow to Canberra 12 September 1943]. Text reads: "change in circumstances - and in particular the dissolution of the [[Comintern]] - necessitates a change in the method used by the workers of our residencies to keep in touch with the leaders of the local [[Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America#Secret_apparatus|Communist]] organizations on intelligence matters. 
2. Our workers, by continuing to meet the leader of the Communists, are exposing themselves to danger and are giving cause [''orgs of''] local authorities to suspect that the Comintern is still in existence. 
3. We propose: 
a. That personal contact with leaders of the local Communist organizations should cease and that Communist material should not be accepted for forwarding to the Comintern. 
b. That meetings of our workers may take place only with special reliable undercover [ZAKONSPIRIROVANNYJ] contacts of the Communist [D% organizations], who are not suspected by the [''orgs of''] local authorities, exclusively about specific aspects of our intelligence work (acquiring [1 group unidentified] contacts, leads [NAVODKI], rechecking of those who are being cultivated, etc.). For each meeting it is necessary to obtain our consent. 

Representative of the Soviet Union. 

No. 4084 
Lt. Gen. [[P.M. Fitin]]. 

Notes: [a] This message is known to have been sent also to NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, and OTTAWA.</ref> in the entire corpus of [[VENONA]] translations. This message clearly discloses the [[KGB]]'s connection to the Comintern and to the national Communist parties. <ref>''Counterintelligence Reader'', National Counterintelligence Center, United States, [http://www.fas.org/irp/ops/ci/docs/ci2/2ch4_a.htm Vol. 2, Ch. 4], n.d.</ref> Shortly afterwards Rear Admiral Staton, a Congressional Medal of Honor recipient, was asked to testify before the Cox Committee of House of Representatives on the [[White House]] efforts to protect Communists in the Armed Forces. Staton complied in executive session. Before he could appear in public hearings, [[Adlai Stevenson]], assistant to Secretary Knox, instructed him that "there were White House orders" forbidding him to testify. <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,777835,00.html ''Cox's Circus''], Time magazine, Monday, Jul. 19, 1943.</ref> By that time Counter-Intelligence officers had obtained irrefutable proof that the CPUSA had developed an extensive plan to abolish the Armed Forces' counter-subversive system. <ref>Long, op.cit., pg. 12.</ref>

Roosevelt himself was responsible for the order of January 1, 1944 which abolished the entire setup of the Counter-Intelligence Corps in the [[War Department]].<ref>Long, op.cit., pg. 12.</ref> On February 19 the War Department issued the order which purposely disorganized the counter-subversive reporting system of the Armed Forces. <ref>Long, op.cit., pg. 13</ref> On May 19, the day after learning of the secret order to destroy the War Department records on subversives, Senator [[StyIes Bridges]], a member of the Military Affairs Committee, demanded an explanation from Secretary of War [[Henry Stimson]]. Lieutenant General McNarney, Army Chief of Staff deputy, was "vague, evasive and obstructive." Bridges told McNarney "he could forgive an officer who makes a mistake or loses a battle, but that an officer who betrays the security of his country should be taken out and shot." McNarney admitted the order had been issued from "higher authority." After much wrangling, Secretary Stimson in a letter of May 27 promised to prevent the destruction of records on subversives. <ref>Long, op.cit., pgs. 28-31.</ref>

The War Department, on December 30, 1944, issued a secret order which expressly condoned "divided loyalty" and established as a guiding rule that "the subversive-suspect should be given the benefit of all reasonable doubt."

===Big Three conferences===
:''See also '''[[Teheran conference]]'''''

At the [[Teheran conference]] it was secretly agreed to let the Soviet Union have not only eastern Poland but also part of Finland, the Baltic States and parts of Romania. It was secretly agreed to support the Yugoslav Communist, [[Joseph Broz Tito]], and desert the pro-Western, anti-totalitarian friend, General Mihailovich. Roosevelt told a joint session of Congress upon his return to the United States that no secret arrangements had been made.

:''See also '''[[Yalta conference]]'''''

At the [[Yalta conference]] a [[reparations]] commission was set up. The Soviet Union wanted the amount to be 20 billion dollars of which the USSR would take half. It was agreed that labor might be taken as a possible source of reparations. This was a way of authorizing the seizure of human beings to work as [[slave]]s and is the basis of the crime perpetrated after hostilities ceased to which Franklin Roosevelt agreed. <ref>''Speaking Frankly'', James F. Byrnes, New York: Harper & Bros., 1947, p. 29.</ref>

Roosevelt also agreed at Yalta to have all fugitive Soviet nationals or citizens of satellite nations and tens of thousands of [[POW]]'s who elected to stay this side of the [[Iron Curtain]], returned to the Soviet Union. This was in contravention of the Geneva Convention. The ''Saturday Evening Post'' commented:
{{Cquote|With this shameful agreement as their authority, Russian [[KGB|MVD]] agents strode through the displaced-persons camps after the war and put the finger on thousands who had managed to escape the Soviet tyranny. These miserable victims were herded into boxcars and driven back to death, torture or the slow murder of the Siberian mines and forests. Many killed themselves on the way. Also under a Yalta agreement, the Russians were permitted to use German prisoners in forced labor as an item in 'reparations account.' For such inhumanities there is no excuse.<ref>''Saturday Evening Post'', Editorial, April 11, 1953, pg. 12.</ref>}}

Roosevelt not only made agreements secret from the American people but secret from his closest advisers in the government. He made agreements with Stalin hostile to the objectives of Churchill and kept secret from Churchill. He made secret agreements with [[Chiang Kai-shek]] secret from both Churchill and Stalin. He made secret agreements in derogation of Chiang Kai-shek's interests without Chiang Kai-shek's knowledge. And he made many secret agreements which no one in the U.S. State Department knew about until after his death and then learned about only at embarrassing moments from Soviet Foreign Minister [[Vyacheslav Molotov]]. <ref>''Roosevelt Myth'', Book 3, Ch. 13, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Thirteen___The_Final_Bet.htm ''The Final Betrayal''], Flynn, 1948.</ref>

== Fourth Term ==
[[Image:Fbisilvermasterfilevol15p4.JPG|right|250px|thumb|CPUSA defector [[Louis Budenz]] testified he could name 400 individuals involved in the [[CPUSA#Secret_apparatus|Communist conspiracy]]; <ref>[http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft296nb15t&chunk.id=d0e6193&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e4718&brand=eschol FBI Headquarters File 100-63, Louis Francis Budenz, Internal Security—C, Serial 122.]</ref> others testified there may have been over 1000.<ref>Executive Sessions of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations ([http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/McCarthy_Transcripts.htm McCarthy Hearings 1953-54]).</ref> The Silvermaster group had 27 high level infiltrators still employed in the US government well after the War ended.<ref>[http://education-research.org/PDFs/Silvermaster015.pdf FBI Silvermaster file Vol. 15, pg. 4 pdf.]</ref>
]]
In February 1944 Congress rejected Roosevelt's demand for a $10,500,000,000 tax increase and cut it to $2,300,000,000. Roosevelt vetoed it saying this was a "bill not for relief of the needy but of the greedy."
Senator [[Alben Barkley]], Democratic leader, rose on the floor of the Senate to say the veto was "a calculated and deliberate assault upon the legislative integrity of every member of Congress." The entire Senate united in a roar of applause. Barkley declared that after seven years of carrying the [[New Deal]] banner for Roosevelt, he would resign his post as Democratic majority leader and he called on every member of the Congress to preserve its self respect and override the veto. The Senate overrode it 72 to 14 and the House 299 to 95.

After the [[Comintern]] was disbanded Roosevelt was offered the nomination of the [[Communist]] dominated [[American Labor Party]] and he had accepted their nomination in the [[Presidential election of 1944]]. It was 825,000 votes from [[Earl Browder]] and [[Sidney Hillman]]'s American Labor Party that gave him his majority in New York State. His administration was now the hopeless prisoner of these demanding and ruthless radical labor leaders,<ref>''Roosevelt Myth'', Book 3, Ch. 12, [http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/book/fdrmyth_Chapter_Twelve___The_Atlantic_Ch.htm ''The Atlantic Charter Is Scrapped''], Flynn, 1948.</ref> who had shown their ability to elect or defeat the Democratic party, who had filled all the departments and bureaus with their agents and who had insinuated their experts into the CIO labor unions and their propagandists into the radio, the movies and all the great instruments of communication and opinion - a fact which Mr. Roosevelt's successors would have to face when the war ended. <ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060820054409/http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/2000/summer/re2-su0.htm ''The Venona Progeny''], Hayen B. Peake, Naval War College Review, Summer 2000, Vol. LIII, No. 3. "[[Venona]] makes absolutely clear that they had active agents in the U.S. State Department, Treasury Department, Justice Department, Senate committee staffs, the military services, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the [[Manhattan Project]], and the [[White House]], as well as wartime agencies. No modern government was more thoroughly penetrated." [[Hayden B. Peake]] is the curator of [[Central Intelligence Agency]]’s (CIA) Historical Intelligence Collection. [http://intellit.muskingum.edu/alpha_folder/P_folder/peake.html]</ref>

So thorough was [[KGB]] penetration of the Roosevelt Administration, that when [[Army Signals Intelligence]] cryptographer [[Meredith Gardner]] extracted the names of [[Hans Bethe]], [[Niels Bohr]], [[Enrico Fermi]], [[Harold Urey]], [[Edward Teller]] and 11 other scientists working on the [[Manhattan Project]] from a December 2, 1944 KGB encypherment,<ref>[http://www.nsa.gov/venona/venon00014.cfm Venona 1699 New York to Moscow, December 2, 1944].</ref> KGB agent [[William Weisband]] watched him do it.<ref>VENONA: Soviet Espionage and the American Response, 1939-1957, Robert Louis Benson and Michael Warner, eds., (Washington, D.C.: [[National Security Agency]], Central Intelligence Agency, 1996) [https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/preface.htm]; The ''Baltimore Sun'' (Laura Sullivan, "SPY'S ROLE LINKED TO US FAILURE ON KOREA," 6/29/00) reported that a report newly declassified by the US National Security Agency (NSA) shows that [[William Weisband]] alerted the Soviets to extensive US eavesdropping in 1948, resulting in a complete blackout of information from the communist bloc for more than two years. This crippled the NSA's intelligence gathering efforts in the late 1940s and begins to explain why the US was caught unprepared for the [[DPRK]]'s 1950 invasion of the [[ROK]]. NSA historian David A. Hatch, who authored the report, said, "This report answers several significant questions. Up until now, there has been a great lack of knowledge surrounding some of these events ... and this should help sharpen [the public's] understanding." [Ed. note: This article was included in the US Department of Defense's Early Bird news service for June 29, 2000.] [http://www.nautilus.org/archives/napsnet/dr/0006/JUN29.html#item8] </ref>

[[Strom Thurmond]] also supported FDR's decision to seek a fourth term, and referred to Roosevelt as having been the world’s greatest leader. <ref>[http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html What Trent Meant], Kevin Baker.</ref>

== Reflections on Christianity ==

FDR said this about the Bible in an address on October 6, 1935:

:"We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the [[Bible]] has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic."

:"Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity."<ref>Quoted in DeMar, ''The Untold Story'', p. 60 and Gabrial Sivan, ''The Bible and Civilization'' (New York: Quadrangle/The New York Times Book Co., 1973), p. 178.</ref>

FDR became famous for delivering "fireside chats" over the new medium of [[radio]], and on March 9, 1937 he declared:

:"I hope that you have re-read the [[United States Constitution| Constitution]] of the United States in these past few weeks. Like the Bible, it ought to be read again and again."

While running for his third time in a Brooklyn speech, Roosevelt said,

:"I am certain that the rank and file of patriotic Republicans do not realize the nature of this threat. They should remember, and we must remember, what the collaborative understanding between Communism and Nazism has done to the processes of democracy abroad...

:"Those forces hate democracy and Christianity as two phases of the same civilization. They oppose democracy because it is Christian. They oppose Christianity because it preaches democracy. Their objective is to prevent democracy from becoming strong. <ref>''Roosevelt and Hopkins'', Sherwood, 1948, pgs. 193-194 (pgs. 211 - 212 pdf).</ref>

As [[World War II]] broke out in Europe, FDR warned:

:"Those forces hate [[Democracy]] and [[Christianity]] as two phases of the same civilization."

The following year, on May 27, 1941, FDR stated in one of his radio addresses:

:The Nazis are as ruthless as the Communists in the denial of God.

"In his second inaugural address, FDR pledged to do his utmost by 'seeking Divine guidance.' He took that mission further on January 25, 1941, when he wrote a personal prologue to a special edition of the [[New Testament]], which was distributed to millions of U.S. soldiers. 'As Commander-in-Chief,' Roosevelt wrote, 'I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States.' He believed that all American soldiers should have the opportunity to read the words of [[Christ]] in preparing for battle. Once, when joining those soldiers aboard a warship with Winston Churchill, FDR asked the crew and prime minister to join him in singing the hymn 'Onward Christian Soldiers.' In his final inaugural address, FDR affirmed, "So we pray to Him for the vision to see our way clearly ... to achievement of His will.' "<ref>God and George W. Bush (New York: Regan Books, 2004), p. 176</ref>

When American soldiers were landing on the beaches of Normandy, Roosevelt led the nation in prayer during a radio broadcast. <ref>Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, [http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/odddayp.html Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day Prayer], June 6, 1944.</ref>

==Legacy==
[[Image:Dcrosmor.jpg|right|thumb|330px]]

Roosevelt is an admired but still hotly debated president. Many credit Roosevelt with helping the United States survive the Great Depression and with providing solid leadership during World War II. Others, especially conservatives, assert that he uselessly expanded the welfare state, abused executive powers, and badly botched diplomacy before and during World War II.

Roosevelt's image now appears on the [[Dime]].

==See also==
*[[New Ordeal]]
*[[Michael Whitney Straight]]

==Further reading==
*Charles Maclaurin, ''Post Mortem'' and ''Mere Mortals'' (New York: Doran, 1923, 1925).

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

== External Links ==
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=176 "The Mythology of Roosevelt and the New Deal," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_greatdepression.html/ Great Depression]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&articleID=139 "On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon''," by Ralph Raico]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 "Wartime Prosperity?", by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1468 FDR: The Man, the Leader, the Legacy], Ralph Raico, Future of Freedom Foundation, April 1, 2001. Retrieved from The Independent Institute.org 06/17/07.


{{USPresidents}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Roosevelt, Franklin D.}}

[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:People who were Educated at Home]]

History of Atheism

2008-09-22T16:28:15Z

JohnyGoodman: Spinoza was a pantheist.

The '''history of atheism''', depending on how one defines the term, can be dated to as early as the 6th century BC, or as recently as the late 18th century AD. The word ''atheism'' itself was not coined until the 16th century.<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism</ref>

The earliest possible examples of atheism involve Eastern religions such as [[Jainism]], [[Buddhism]] and [[Taoism]], which do not include a deity. These date back to the 6th century BC, but there is some dispute over whether these religions can be classified as atheistic, in the sense of denying the existence of gods, as many other branches of these religions do incorporate deity worship. In some such religions, the question of the existence of gods is considered to be unimportant rather than a question which can be answered one way or the other. This stance can be better described by the neologism ''apatheism''.

Atheism can also be traced to Ancient Greece in the 5th century BC. [[Diagoras of Melos]] is often referred to as "The First Atheist", and other men who claimed to be atheists include Theodorus of Cyrene and Euhemerus. [[Epicurus]] and Lucretius, who are often described as atheists, believed that the gods existed but that they were unconcerned with human affairs: a position better described as [[Deism]] than atheism. [[Protagoras]] espoused a position which we would describe today as [[agnosticism]], stating that "With regard to the gods I am unable to say either that they exist or do not exist."<ref>Cicero, De Natura Deorum</ref> At the time, however, atheism was a capital offense in Greece - it was the crime for which Socrates was executed, though he denied the charge. It is therefore possible that some individuals may have concealed their true beliefs.

In Medieval and Renaissance Europe, instances of atheism are rare. The existence of arguments put forward to demonstrate God's existence by [[St. Thomas Aquinas|Aquinas]], Anselm and others suggests that non-belief was not unheard of, but few records of it are known.

Modern atheism did not begin until the Enlightenment. Baron D'Holbach's book ''The System of Nature'' was the first publication which explicitly denied the existence of God. Other atheists from this time included the philosopher [[David Hume]]. Others denied being atheists (heresy and blasphemy were capital offences) but held materialistic, empiricist, broadly deistic views; these include [[Voltaire]], [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Thomas Paine]], [[John Locke]], [[Immanuel Kant]] and [[Benjamin Franklin]].

==References==
<references />

==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category:Philosophy]]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-04T01:59:46Z

JohnyGoodman:

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.{{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::sigh... I'm trying to argue for how the article can be improved - for example by introducing at least one source for the central claim of the article, by accepting sources that contradict the claim, and by not including incorrect and unsourced supporting evidence that seem to rely solely on the opinion of the editor. The problem is that people like me who make edits that contradict the views of sysops (through completely justified ways using sources or criticising lack of sources) are accused of vandalism and thus must make an argument in the discussion section to try and get anything done (lest we be banned for vandalism). We then have to argue for an epoch to try and get the most basic factual edits made (see the Atheism discussion page, where several editors have had to teach Conservative simple philosophy to a high school level in an attempt to get the oh so controversial claim that some atheists came to their beliefs through rational enquiry accepted) - and are thus banned for using the discussion section too much. If you want my suggestions for improving the article, I have made them repeatedly. Yet still the article is full of unsourced rubbish, and this is rendered impossible to change due to the catch 22 system of banning described above. You use the edit button and you're banned for not using the discussion button, you use the discussion button and you're banned for not using the edit button.

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

:So everyone is susceptible to mental illness from "Liberal ideas" because everyone is "exposed" (just like sunlight, air, Conservative ideas, or '''anything else'''), but of course for different reasons. Now your causation doesn't even have meaningful correlation! [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 22:25, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

2008-09-02T03:15:34Z

JohnyGoodman:

Wasn't Orwell, in general, just against totalitarianism, whether from the left or the right? And, especially, he showed how it could come about from either "side"? [[User:Human|Human]] 03:37, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:*The viewpoint of leftists is that totalitarianism can come about from either side, but they give no examples (except maybe Hitler, whose attempt failed). Leftists will do anything to justify socialism and communism, but taking away people's freedom will not bring about peace, lasting prosperity or any kind of ideal world. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Suharto. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 19:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::[[Suharto]]'s [[Indonesia]] is another good example of an [[Authoritarian]] regime which permitted [[emigration]] and [[religious freedom]]. If you want to start a debate about what form of government is best, that's what the [[Conservapedia:Debate Topics]] are for. You won't fool any conservatives here with that one. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:45, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

: No such things as conservative totalitarianism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::Surely Augusto Pinochet of Chile leaned to the conservative side of things? In fact, the Independent Democrat Union, a party founded under his direct influence, is the largest conservative party in Chile today. - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 17:01, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Thatcher is a big fan of Pinochet. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/304516.stm] --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:08, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::EAB, are you saying that Pinochet, who established democracy and voluntarily stepped down, was a "totalitarian"???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

::::He did have one heck of a "disappearing" act... - [[User:EAB|EAB]] 18:30, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Aschlafly, did you just praise Pinochet? Democracy didn't come to Chile until the 80's, Pinochet was in power from the 70's. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 18:34, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Pinochet is the poster boy (or whipping boy) for Western leftists. Supposedly he is the great example of being "right wing" and "anti-democratic". Others say that his anti-socialist coup (of 1973) ultimately preserved democracy.

He's only hated because he prevented Communism from taking over. They only criticize the "disappearances" he allegedly perpetrated, but not the murders carried out by Che Guevara or Fidel Castro, so it's actually an outstanding example of the leftist [[double standard]].

Leftists pretend praise democracy, but they really want to take away other people's power. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:55, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

: Right, Ed. I'd add that [[leftists]] have hated Pinochet for decades because he defeated them. It's analogous to how the [[leftists]] hate other people who beat them, such as [[Nixon]] (who exposed [[Alger Hiss]]) and [[Joe McCarthy]]. [[Leftists]] do hold grudges, big time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
:: The two of you would do well to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet%27s_arrest_and_trial [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

So, I'm a communist 'cause I think Pinochet was a brute. I guess my ancestors ''escaping'' from Russia was just to ''bring'' communism to the US. I dislike Pinochet because of the:
*Leftists who would "disappear" and never be heard from again.
*Torture
*Arbitrary detention etc.
These anger me as a ''human'' not as a leftist. And since we're using cheap shots. Back in the 30's, people on the right admired Mussolini and Hitler for their "efficient" systems of government. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 19:32, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

:So far, the only time I've heard you express anger over human rights abuses is with respect to a few cases in a government which (1) had US support and (2) transitioned peacefully to [[democracy]]. I wonder how you feel about [[Communist]] countries which have done 100's and 1,000s of times more . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
:: 1) and 2) don't make the human rights abuses go away. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

:Your silence about Communism's proven millions of murders is louder than your profession of outrage over Pinochet's alleged thousands. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:47, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Uh, I think the point is that totalitarianism and dictatorship come from either side of the spectrum. Nobody's denying the communist atrocities.

As for Orwell expressing Conservative as well as anti-authoritarian views in 1984 and Animal Farm, I don't think so. So in 1984 Wintson's having sex with prostitutes, having a love affair in strict contradiction of the state's suppression of extra-marital affairs for purposes other than reproduction, talking about how victory can only come with a proletarian revolution and so on. In animal farm the farmers represent conservatism and capitalism in Romanov's Russia and the West - and the (Communists) evil is measured by their similarities with the farmers. I mean, the ending of the book is that the west is just as bad as the east. I don't think he expresses particularly anti-conservative views in the texts, but he certainly doesn't express pro-conservative views. Some of the arguments that are presented for why his views are particularly conservative are also quite incorrect. Wanting a wealthier society isn't strictly conservative, Marx for example advocated Communism because he thought it would produce a wealthier society. Patriotism is also hardly something Conservatism has a monopoly on, again if you want to go to the extreme other end of the section you'll find Stalin talking about the Great Patriotic War, Mother Russia, etc. It's worth adding that where he expresses his most patriotic views is probably in The Lion and the Unicorn, in which he outlines quite clearly that in order to be a patriot (at this point in time meaning wanting to defeat Hitler) one had to be a socialist, a new kind of patriot. That is earlier on in his career (1941) but it's still noteworthy when considering what he means by being a patriot.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:15, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-09-02T02:58:02Z

JohnyGoodman: /* I could not help but notice */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.{{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

I discovered this page by random and although I don't really consider myself to be a liberal, this page is a joke. A bad one. It consists of a silly use of a technique that many folks, conservatives and liberals to name a few, use a lot. This is is to make a (frequently bogus) list of what someone else believes in and then rip it apart, tossing in liberal (or conservative?) doses of ridicule and sarcasm. Why not find a list of what liberal say they believe in and then rip that apart? I am ignoring a little voice saying "Don't get into this" but to not do so would seem like a form of lying to me. [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 18:05, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: Did you happen to notice that the word count on your edit above is "666"? Ridicule will get you ... nowhere. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::"self-inflicted death can somehow be good"--- So where exactly did you get the idea that public schools teach that suicide is an acceptable way to solve problems? Because they simply do not. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 20:59, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].

As far as I know (always worth double-checking) Goetz killed no one and not even the most liberal knucklehead wanted him prosecuted for murder.
To me this line of argument reeks of "'''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods'''"

:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

: By any chance do you work in the denial department of a tobacco company? Please take a few minutes out your time talking here and search the internet to see all the cites about how mental illness really is increasing, not just due to aging.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:01, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

::Johnny, you didn't clearly ''explain'' it, you merely ''stated'' it. If you want to debate, this is not the right place. Our talk pages are for improving the articles, not for scoring points. Think it over for a week, and if you agree, come back then and help improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:31, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

== Connection ==

You need to connect your premises with your conclusion. Right now it looks like you have a bunch of premises / statistics with no discernible connection to the conclusion: that Liberalism causes mental disorders.

I'll demonstrate:

Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[8] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor.

: The problem here is that you can't, under this framework, rule out /anything/ as the root cause of mental instability, so you must support to some degree that liberalism is threatening to your mental health in some inherent way, which is why you created the following list, though it does not support your conclusion as you thought it would.

Teaching children to accept and believe things that are demonstrably false cannot help mental health. Included in this category are the liberal teachings in school that:

: The problem he is that everything is false and everything is true from the perspective of objective thought: there is a reason why you can't simply talk someone out of a cult or out of Islam, they truly believe what they believe, so there is no reason to assume that (short of believing that there is no gravity and a fall from the empire state building would be fun) holding these notions will cause any actual physical or mental harm. Also, and this has already been pointed out, you have to somehow /verify/ that typical secular (you people seem to oft confuse moderates with liberals and secularism with liberalism) beliefs are demonstrably false.

* lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders[9]

: Here at first I thought you cited a source, but you only cite a definition. I also have a problem with the bad faith position you take with liberals in this case: yes, they say things that can be argued are incorrect, but they don't intentionally lie about the truth in the broad way you believe.

* there are no real differences between boys and girls

: I think you misunderstand what educators mean when they say this. Educators mean there is not enough of a difference in /potential/ to justify separation based on gender. Indeed, boys score on average higher than girls do in the math and science department, but that is only an average (and would either justify being more rigorous with girls or being easier on boys, you choose which) and not justification for stating that girls are inferior to boys.

* humans are just another type of animal

: Um, we are? This is certainly better than telling them the truth if you're so concerned about this issue: we are dust and nothing more. That is more depressing than noting we are, TECHNICALLY (as in, strictly speaking under the framework of certain systems (see biology)) speaking, animals.

* all there is is what you see

: Where is this taught? Yes, I went to a public high school, but that was NOT in any way a part of the curriculum. I think you mean, and this is a better way to word it, that there is no *mystery* in life that cannot be solved with our own powers of logic and reason. This is a fair critique, but this is not intentional. The only place you see this sort of world view is in a science class, and we don't want religion and science to be married together: you cannot find God with a microscope.

* conversely, that an unproven 'unconscious' excuses evil actions

: You definitely need to cite this and clarify this as well. I think you mean that schools teach that some things aren't entirely our fault, and they are correct. The insane are not held to the same standards of behavior as 'normal' people are, so to say that there is more than we see (somewhat in contradiction with your previous point) is not an unreasonable belief.

* self-inflicted death can somehow be good

:Remove this: it's a total lie unless you can cite a source. What you're talking about exists well beyond political labels: it is a belief that is arrived at on an individual level, not something you can look to your peers for a sufficient answer for.

* denying self-defense, mentally and physically

: Eh? Cite this, and clarify. Radical gun control advocates don't believe in self defense, because they are under a delusional belief that all things may be settled with words even when force is unavoidable. This is not typical education anywhere in the world.

* denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness

: You mean homosexuality. I think this is actually a stronger argument than your other points, though it requires citation. Also, 'liberal' education promotes /acceptance/ of these lifestyles, it does not advocate them (though this is harder to discern if you watch TV).

* insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability

: Omit the words illogical and unjustified; this begs for a citation and makes assumptions that have not been given foundational support via evidence. Believe it or not, it's good for the world that the state and the church are separate: the state is the ultimate corrupter and defiler of all things, and religion is no exception. Would you really want /politicians/ to tell you what is and is not Christian? Also classroom prayer, under most circumstances is a joke: you take something sacred and you turn it into a silly impersonal ritual. Though that is simply my opinion; it can be argued (see Durkheim) that prayer / strict religious structures add stability to mental health, but you haven't done a good job of saying that.

As to the rest of the article... there are many explanations that, on a scale of reasonableness, explain the recent surge in mental disorder diagnosis. Part of it is that it was not till recently that having a mental disorder was treatable outside of a mental institution, that most mental disorders do not readily appear as such to the untrained eye (bipolar disorder, depression, ect), and the increase in life expectancy. If you want to attribute liberal education as a cause, then you need to to a better job demonstrating that A) education is liberal (exposes and promotes liberal ideals) B) that liberalism is inherently unhealthy and C) that the rise of liberalism corresponds directly to the rise in mental health disorders. This is in no way impossible but is unfortunately not done in this essay. If you would like to know more, I recommend books on sociology; they address this sort of thing more directly than other fields. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:02, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

== I could not help but notice ==

that one of today's lead stories here reveals that [[Margaret Thatcher]] has a form of dementia. A mental illness? The same one that [[Ronald Reagan]], [[John Wayne]], [[Barry Goldwater]], and [[Charlton Heston|Chuck Heston]] died with? Hmmmmmmmmm? [[User:Carptrash|Carptrash]] 11:36, 26 August 2008 (EDT)
Margaret Thatcher battled the left for all her life. She must have come into contact with their literature and ideas during this struggle - and that must have been what drove her insane.

== 89% ==

The 89% of Americans being taught in public schools statistic is mentioned twice in rapid succession, which reads a bit clumsily. I couldn't see an obvious way to only say it once without doing a bit more rewriting of the intro than I think is worth my effort. So someone who cares about this "mystery" might want to take a crack at it. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:39, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Mystery:Did George Orwell Become a Conservative?

2008-08-31T18:52:07Z

JohnyGoodman: anti-authoritarian does not equal conservative

[[George Orwell]] wrote two books late in his life that are considered among the greatest of 20th Century English works: [[1984]] and [[Animal Farm]]. Both have strongly anti-authoritarian principles.

Orwell indisputably grew critical of his [[leftist]] ideological allies as he grew older. However, he remained a democratic socialist in name, if not in beliefs. It is suspected that he kept his public image in order to retain his influential position as a columnist for its leading publication, the ''Tribune''. Moreover, his support of democratic socialism was based on [[conservative]] reasons: he thought it would produce a wealthier society.

Commentator Philip Thody writes:<ref>http://revel.unice.fr/cycnos/document.html?id=1391</ref>

:There are nevertheless four aspects of Orwell’s later work which are more closely linked to conservative than to left-wing styles of thinking. The first lies in the impact which Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four made not only on his readers but on public opinion generally. The second is his attitude to issues such as patriotism, warfare and sexual morality. The third is his insistence on the need for freedom of speech and his view of language as a means of rational communication. The fourth, for which he can be held only indirectly responsible, is the views expressed about him by his critics, both those who admire his work and those who find its ideas and themes unattractive. What all these areas have in common is the light they throw on the problem of definition. The critics who attacked Orwell for making what they saw as the great betrayal, like those who praised him for being one of the first to see the light, were either consciously or unconsciously defining what they saw as left and right at the moment when they were writing.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Mystery]]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-23T19:33:52Z

JohnyGoodman:

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.{{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].
:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
The points is that you're using the increase in dementia to try and correlate it with an increase in "liberal" education. Yet the increase in dementia is easily explained by professionals as a result of increased old age. Not only does this remove the evidence you're using, but it presents a new problem. If education is more "liberal" then why are we not seeing a greater increase in dementia than we would expect as a result of old age? You then argue that is doesn't "diminish primary causes" which as I explained it clearly does. But more importantly, what are these "primary causes"? You have only asserted causes, rather than referencing experts in the field. For example you say "surely you don't doubt that education exacerbates mental problems". Yet there is not one academic who argues that liberal education does cause mental problems. So the primary cause you are referring to (education) isn't just diminished - it doesn't exist in the first place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 15:33, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Daniel Dennett

2008-08-22T18:03:12Z

JohnyGoodman:

'''Daniel Dennett''' is a philosophy professor at [[Tufts University]] who actively promotes the [[naturalistic]] world view through such books as ''[[Darwin’s Dangerous Idea]]''.

==Conscious Philosophy==

Dennett is widely regarded as one of the premier philosophers in the world in the area of consciousness and his book [[Consciousness Explained]] is regarded by some as among the most important text in naturalist philosophy of the mind. In it, he proposes his initial [[multiple drafts model]] of consciousness, where he proposes that there is no single source of consciousness (no [[conscious qualia]], as proposed by many of his contemporaries).

He has been heavily criticized by some of his peers for denying the existence of qualia and sticking with his naturalist models of consciousness (he later expanded the multiple drafts model to the [[fame in the brain]] model in his 2005 book [[Sweet Dreams]]) as he insists that there is no evidence, and that neurological science will, in time, progress to make the idea of qualia, or the source of seemingly inexplicable functions in the mind, obselete.

Dennett has also been a proponent of Evolutionary Psychology as well as Richard Dawkin's idea of the meme. This lead to some notable clashes with Paleontologist Steven Jay Gould.

[[category:Atheists]]
{{atheists}}

Dante's Inferno

2008-08-22T17:59:26Z

JohnyGoodman:

[[Image:Gfdyte7y6.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Satan is trapped in the frozen central zone in the Ninth Circle of Hell, Inferno, Canto 34.]]
The first book of [[Dante]]'s trilogy, ''The Divine Comedy,'' about his imagined trip to [[Hell]]. It is very frightening. According to Dante, the inscription at the entrance to Hell reads "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

''The Divine Comedy'' was most famously illustrated by Gustave Doré, whose very literal interpretations of the punishments sinners suffer in Hell are truly horrifying.

Dante's work is most notably critisized as "an eclectitc mix of religions", as in illustrating various sins in his book Dante employs punishments and commandments from many religions, including judaism, christianity, and scientology, instead of focusing on Hell as defined by any one religion.
[[Category:Poetry]]

== In Popular Culture ==

A 2002 best-selling mystery novel by Matthew Pearl, ''The Dante Club,'' is a piece of historical fiction set in [[Boston]] in 1865. It is based partly on real events; the [[Dante Club]] was real, the mystery story is not. At the time, not many people in the [[United States]] knew [[Italian]] or Dante's work. A group of writers formed a club to translate Dante's work and promote his importance. Three of them were [[Henry Wadsworth Longfellow]], [[Oliver Wendell Holmes]], and [[James Russell Lowell]]. Like Dante's work itself, it has frightening and gruesome scenes, but is rich in historical background.

Dante's Inferno

2008-08-22T17:58:39Z

JohnyGoodman:

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-22T03:25:35Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Stephen Fry */

==Congratulations==
Andy, well done - a very well-argued essay, and one that will no doubt provoke our Liberal friends into a frenzy of denial. You might care to add that Sweden, the 'poster-boy' nation for many Liberals, has an enormously high suicide rate (and other ultra-Liberal nations likewise). [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: Thanks much, Bugler. I value your opinion and insights very much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== An apology ==
I investigated the reference I used to support the idea that some self-deception is healthy and found i tto be not in support of that idea at all! I want to apologize for using the reference, and was on my way to change it when I found the statement had already been removed by Aschlafly, which is a pity, because it's generally accepted by psychologists - I just hadn't found verification for that, yet. For the record, it does seem like a helpful article discussing Palestinian hostility to Israel!
[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:54, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks DLerner ==

Thanks for correcting that error. What I meant to say was "[[censoring]] [[classroom prayer]] THAT would promote mental stability." Your fix is fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:your welcome. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== The liberal response ==

I will be the first liberal to respond.

Let me begin with what I think the real reason there is a huge rise in dementia. In the last few decades there has been an enormous increase in the consumption of "junk" food. I don't mean just candy and cookies, I mean all processed food; it's loaded with preservatives and chemicals which you normally wouldn't '''think''' of eating, but since it comes in a pretty package with pretty slogans like "99% fat free", we think it's good for you. The [[Obesity|obesity]] epidemic probably also contributes a great deal. For further information, see Eric Schlosser's ''"Fast Food Nation"'' and Morgan Spurlock's ''"Don't Eat this Book"''.{{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:First liberal? What are you doing on Conservapedia? This is not the place for you. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''<Reply>''' I agree that is a problem. However, [[liberal]]s tend to be fatter that [[conservatives]]. What one believes and accepts does affect his ability to keep off the extra pounds. So your observation tends to reinforce the likely correlation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:: Really? Texas had four of the fattest cities in the US a few years ago. Liberals are more into exercise and health food and vegetarianism/veganism, the Bible belt has a '''lot''' of fat people... {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:04, 10 August 2008 (EDT) '''</reply>'''

::I will add my own questiong and responses to ASchlafly's. First, do you have any evidence whatsoever for your statment that liberals tend to be larger than conservatives? and second, are you saying that religious faith keeps you thin? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

As for the content of the article:

: '''lying about the truth, causing belief in falsehoods or encouraging conduct disorders'''

I think the absurdity of this one speaks for itself. "All liberals (and public schools [except the ones that teach [[Intelligent Design]]]) lie. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Many liberals don't think lying is wrong, and even delight in it. There is a correlation, though certainly not all liberals lie.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Liberals do teach that lying is wrong. In fact, many students are expelled from colleges and high schools across the country for Academic Dishonesty (which may mean plagerism, or simply allowing a friend to cheat) op top of that, not all lies are bad. When my wife was pregnant, I lied constantly, telling her that she wasn't fat, she wasn't short tempered etc... Most lies are wrong of course, but there are many that make life better [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''there are no real differences between boys and girls'''

Um, nobody teaches that. I think they teach that they're equal, but a cursory examination of the anatomy reveals '''several''' differences, ''especially'' in the reproductive/waste disposal organs. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You're ducking the obvious point here. Think girls can excel in math as well as boys can? Liberals teach they can, which is teaching a falsehood.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Can girls excel? Of course they can... There have been women who have succeeded in every major field of science. Research shows that men typically have higher scores in Math and Science, while women do better in English and Social Studies, but just as there have many famous male writers and historians, there are dozens if not hundreds of female mathematicians and scientists who have made lasting contributions to the field. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::And yet they still compete seperatly in sports, because it would be unfair otherwise. Women were created to be the primary caregivers. That is why they have breasts, and men havn't. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]

: '''humans are just another type of animal'''

As opposed to .... what? I think humans are another type of [[Mammal|mammal]], and the only way we can actually elevate ourselves is through our actions. Get your genome sequenced and you'll see how close to animals you really are. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Teach your belief and you'll contribute to some mental disorders as kids struggle with your view that they are mere animals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I have never seen any student struggle with the view that they are merely animals. Students develop mental disordered for a variety of reasons, many unknown to science. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::If you cut me, I will bleed - but only a liberal would use that to argue I am the same as a rat. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
:::::''No one'' uses that to argue that you are the ''same'' as a rat- of course you aren't. But a circulatory system is something that you share in common with one, along with a great many other features. Humans are of course (well, for all we know anyway) capable of much more advanced thought than other animals- you can be comfortable with that assertion. But being an animal '''does not''' mean you '''are''' a rat, or a dove, or a louse, or a monkey, or whatever- you are human- it's just a matter of classification. If you're offended by being categorized as an animal, then by definition you must be offended by the claims that your cells contain a nucleus, you are composed of more than one cell, you don't produce your own food internally and don't have cell walls. So which is it? Animal '''by definition''' refers to eukaryotic, multicellular heterotrophs that lack a cell wall. Humans fit all four criteria. Incidentally, so does a rat. That's not a "belief"- it's an eminently verifiable fact (look at a skin cell under a microscope and at the food in your refrigerator), but it doesn't follow by any means that humans and rats are the same.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 00:06, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''all there is is what you see'''

Not true, we teach about [[Bacteria|bacteria]] too small for the naked eye to see. Also about atoms, yes, atoms. (The early church used to suppress any information atoms and/or the writings of Epicures, were ''they'' responsible for mental illness? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You duck the obvious point again, so no response to your comment is warranted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I fail to see how Dlearner was ducking the point. All there is is what you see is an incredibly broad statment that can be taken many ways. I'm assuming you mean that Liberals teach there is no greater power (Ie, you can't see a god, so there must not be one) but that is problematic as well. If one were to truly assume that if they don't see it, it doesn't exist (something I have never heard anyone say) then many established practices and principles of science would not work in their world (Ie X-rays) [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''death can somehow be good'''

We don't teach that. What I think you mean is that death is inevitable and is in fact a part of life. All that lives must die, therefore, death should not be feared. People in pain and suffering from long debilitating illness welcome death, and as adults we must realize this. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals do teach that death can be good. Ever read the leading liberal work in school called "Of Mice and Men"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I respond to this with a question. When someone dies after a long bout with a terminal disease and their family says I'm glad the suffering is over, they've gone home to god. Is that not a good thing? Christian teaching naturally brings about the idea that death can be good, as it allows one to return to their creator [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I have to argue the point on that one, Andy, for two reasons.. First, ''Of Mice and Men'' (italicized or underlined, please--it's a full-length work, not a short story) has a number of liberal themes, but it hardly teaches that death is good. There's nothing good or positive about Lenny's death. If anything, it teaches that the world can be a harsh and unforgiving place, and that the death of innocents is tragic, but sometimes inevitable.

:::Second, as a Christian, I strongly question the notion that "Death can be good" is a liberal idea. My Grandfather suffered terribly from cancer; when he passed, we took comfort in the knowledge that he was no longer in pain, and was at peace with Christ. How is that not a good thing? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:58, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying self-defense, mentally and physically'''

Codswallop. We don't teach that. Self-defense is great! הבא להרגך, השכם להרגו (Trans: "If somebody comes to kill you, stand up and kill him first. ''Talmud'') {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Liberals don't teach the Talmud. Instead, they teach gun control and favor prosecuting for murder people who hold their ground in self-defense, as in [[Bernard Goetz]].
:::I'm a very strong liberal, and I have no issues with self defense, in fact, I have a 12 guage shotgun by my bed that I will have no trouble using for just that purpose if someone threatens my family. On top of that, I plan on enrolling my son in Judo the moment he's old enough to understand the responsibility that comes with it. Can you please show any liberal that has ever advocated killing those who defend themselves? [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

: '''denying the ability to control sexual desires; promoting lifestyles that lead to mental illness'''

Perhaps you didn't know that even liberals teach [[Abstinence|abstinence]]. (deleted non-family-friendly rant - can't liberals refrain?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT))

:: Liberals oppose teaching abstinence or funding abstinence education.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Again, not true. Liberals (such as myself) are against teaching abstinence '''ONLY''' Sex education because the fact remains, it's not working. Pregnancy rates among teenagers drop sharpest when they're taught a combination of abstinence and contraception. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
::::Andrew, why was my so-called "rant" not family-friendly, because I spoke about Onanism? (I suppose a family-friendly word)? {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::That's because all liberals want is sex, sex, sex. They never got over the 60's "free love" thing. - [[USer:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]]
: '''insisting on an illogical and unjustified "wall of separation of church and state"; classroom prayer would promote mental stability'''

Separation of church and state is logical and justified. (This is coming from a very religious person, so listen up). I don't your religion -whatever the majority of Christians in that state are- being forced on my Jewish kids, THAT is the logic. The justification. Andrew, I see you are working on history lectures, read through history about the times there wasn't a separation between church and state; what do you get? The [[Spanish Inquisition|inquisition]] comes to mind. Personally, I prefer separation of church and state to the ''auto de fe'' any day. {{User:DLerner/sig}} 20:42, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

:: You may be religious yourself but censoring classroom prayer by others is not helpful to them or you. A wall of separation of church and state is baseless, illogical and impossible. It's a contradiction except in a totalitarian atmosphere that imposes censorship.

'''classroom prayer would promote mental stability''' Says who? Maybe you should add [[Conservapedia:Commandments|[Citation Needed]]]?

:: I'm sure lots of studies confirm that prayer is good for mental health. Have you looked yet? It's obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:00, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

::: What's the point of studies if you already know the answer? "I'm sure lots of studies confirm" isn't backing up a claim. Have ''you'' looked yet? [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Mr. Schlafly, I'm new to this site, so I don't quite know your feelings, so let me ask upfront. Do you support teacher led prayer or more of a moment of silence for personal prayer and reflection. Until I know this, I can't really repond in a meaningful way. [[User:JamalG|JamalG]] 20:23, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Once again another "fine" piece of work...

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 19:43, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

Obviously the person suffering from mental illness does not have to admit a correlation in order for a correlation to exist.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:27, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Offensive to mental health sufferers and mental health professionals ==

This is a hateful piece of propaganda, & particularly offensive to anybody suffering with a mental illness, as well as anybody working within the field of mental health. To say that medical professionals have no idea what causes mental illness is ridiculous. There has been over a century of study and treatment of mental illness using scientific methods and findings; not superstition, idle conjecture and anecdotal evidence. Mental illnesses occur in all the world's cultures, regardless of ideology, and you will not find a qualified psychologist who has published any theory that they are caused by "liberal teachings". [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:35, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:You are suffering from that well-documented delusion [[Liberal denial]], BeReasonable. Try to live up to your name. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:38, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Well put, Bugler. As to User "BeReasonable" (note his silly name and how is is not reasonable at all), he challenges a well-supported statement that mental health professions do not know the cause of mental illness. Then he tries to censor an inquiry here into possible causes. He typifies the kind of logical contradiction pushed so often by liberals. Fortunately, we'll continue searching for the truth here despite efforts by liberals to censor it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:41, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::That mental health professionals do not know the causes of mental health is not at all well supported. The [http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2008/06/13/10-myths-of-mental-illness/ cited source] says that ''at a neurological level'' mental illness cannot be identified to one cause - I.E. it is not caused by just one thing going on in the brain. If you read the next paragraph, it goes on to say that mental illness is caused by a blend of genetic, psychological and environmental factors. I have no interest in "censoring" inquiries into why mental health occurs. There are already thousands of trained professionals around the world engaged in such studies. And if you are genuinely interested in the subject, there are hundreds of books you can read. As I have said, I do not think you will find any experts in the subject agreeing with your suggestion that liberalism causes mental illness. However, I do not recommend further reading on the subject, rather than plucking anecdotal examples of correlation. [[User:BeReasonable|BeReasonable]] 08:56, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Teaching liberal beliefs would qualify as a "psychological" and/or "environmental" factor that could cause mental illness. That you dismiss this possible cause out of hand, and even attempt to censor it, illustrates the illogical, self-contradictory approach taken by liberals. Yes, imposing contradictions and falsehoods on others could be bad for their mental health. Surely you don't doubt that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:01, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

== Causation fail ==

Aschlafly,

I discovered Conservapedia recently, and this "essay" is my first exposure to the philosophy of the site. Needless to say, I'm not impressed. Quite apart from ideology, your statement, "Medical professionals emphasize that they do not know what causes mental illness.[6] Accordingly, they cannot rule out that liberal indoctrination is a contributing factor," is massively flawed.

That one cannot rule out something as a contributing factor is not sufficient evidence for causality; it's even weaker and more flawed than arguing that correlation equals causation. I'm holding a fountain pen right now. There are no tigers nearby. You can't rule out the possibility that the fountain pen keeps the tigers away. Would you like my Fountain Pen of Tiger Ward? Yours for $1,000.

My point is that, by your argument, anything at all could be the "cause" of mental illness. If you're going to argue that liberalism causes it, from such scant evidence, it's clear that you're more after an agenda than the truth, and that should be made clear, or better evidence of causation should be found.

I see you're a lawyer of some kind. I expect better of legal professionals than to find causation in the most tenuous of links... unless they're being paid to do that, of course :). In which case, I still wouldn't be happy if this was the best you could do for money.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:12, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

: Your reasoning as is illogical as that of the (silly) "BeReasonable". The inability to rule out liberal teaching as a contributing cause of mental illness weighs in favor of further inquiry of it as a possible cause, and weighs against the censorship of such inquiry as attempted by liberals here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:21, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
::It weighs no more in favor of "further inquiry" than does the fact that mental health professionals can't rule out exposure to, say, Conservapedia! If your point is to illuminate potential causes for mental illness, focus on those that (1) can't be ruled out, and (2) have some AFFIRMATIVE proof. Because the simple lack of negative proof makes the whole world a causal factor!-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:23, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Also, "censorship"? I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Censorship" implies redaction of information by the state or a power. I'm just questioning your logic. Debate is not censorship.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]] 09:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Again, you're not making sense. I explained the significance of not ruling out liberal teaching as a cause of mental illness. It warrants further inquiry and evidence, and the entry here provides lots of additional reasons why liberal teaching is likely a cause of mental illness. If public schools forced kids to receive indoctrination other than liberal falsehoods every day, and 20% were becoming mentally ill afterwards, then it would be fine with me to look at the other indoctrination also. But it is liberal teaching that is being force-fed kids in school, not something else. As to [[censorship]], your definition is far too narrow. Censorship can also result from intimidation or name-calling, as you see above as "BeReasonable" tried to shut down this inquiry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm not trying to shut down the inquiry. I'm just saying you're wrong. What about blocking users for asking questions? Does ''that'' shut down the inquiry?
:::::I see you're not going to understand the problem behind singling out one cause among a million environmental causes. That's fine. It does, however, suggest "inquiry bias." Moving on.
:::::Have you considered the possible rise in diagnosis as a reason for the increase in mental conditions? It only recently became acceptable & treatable to have a mental illness. Only reasonable to suggest, then, that diagnoses would climb.-[[User:Gcarhart|Gcarhart]]

== Correlation does not imply causation. And even if it did... ==

''The USA (2/3 conservative by some surveys which have been quoted in criticizing wikipedia's disproportionate liberal voice) has some of the highest murder rates in the world - 5 to 10 per 100000. Europe and Australasia (both liberal and secular by comparison to the USA) have much lower murder rates. Officially atheist China reports a lower rate still. Clearly, conservativism is correlated with high murder rates.''
Of course this is a rubbish argument, for two reasons: 
- Correlation does not imply causation. There could be a number of reasons for a correlation between conservativism and high murder rates. Perhaps more conservative nations have stricter laws about their definition of 'murder'; the more liberal nations more often call it 'manslaughter', making their figures look lower. There are many many possible reasons. 
- The brief survey I've done here, even assuming the figures are correct, hardly counts even as 'correlation' when it comes to statistical science. In order for you to even say that a correlation exists in this example, we need a consistent measure of 'conservativism', and we need to include all relevant countries, not just hand pick several which happen to illustrate the point. Then we should graph them all and see how closely conservativism is matched with murder rates. Only then could we even claim that there is an undisputable correlation.

The USA does have a lot of liberal viewpoints, but then compared to Europe and Australasia it's very conservative in many ways - for instance, in New Zealand, few ever even debate whether abortion should be legal. Yet Europe and Australasia have lower levels of depression than the USA, according to the article cited. This should count as evidence against the hypothesis that correlation between mental illness and liberalism even exists. It's also a very poor way to measure mental illness as depression is only one (and one of the MORE spurious, debatable ones at that) of a whole range of mental illnesses recognized by modern psychology.
Finally, like my analogy of murder rates and conservativism, in order to draw even a correlation we need to see more than several countries' match of liberalism and high mental illness rates.

[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:38, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: The argument is based primarily on logic: teach people contradictions, deprive them of prayer, force them to believe they are mere animals like dogs who will die as dogs do, and you're going to get mental illness as a result.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't disagree with your conclusion - it's just that your premises as given in the article do not give it any support! You may like to read this article discussing the link between good mental health and religiousity: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10520234&pnum=0 --[[User:UlyssesNZ|UlyssesNZ]] 17:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion of edits ==

I see my edits as perfectly justified. Perhaps Andy would like to give reason for his reversions (btw, liberal claptrap is not a reason, but an accusation).

:::Again, I would like to know why my edits are being reverted. No reason has been given (I gave my reasoning in edit summaries, if you'd like me to clarify please ask). Perhaps sysops are exempt from the whole "provide sources, promote true and verifiable claims" thingy. I mean there aren't any sources on the page so far that suggest to any extent that liberalism causes mental illness. As for liberalism not being ruled out as a reason for mental illness, I justifiably added that neither has conservatism (or driving your car, or going for a jog, or reading hardback books). So please provide your counterpoints ASchlafy or I will make the edits again. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 14:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

::: The reasons should be obvious. Liberal teachings dominate public schools, not conservative teachings. In fact, there is very little conservative teachings anywhere - people have to find it on their own. Hopefully you will too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Firstly you didn't rule out the other causes for mental illness, i.e driving a car, going for a jog, reading hardback books. Presumably as these have not been ruled out we need perhaps entire articles on whether they cause mental illness. Secondly the fact that liberalism is dominant in schools and mental illness has increased therefore liberalism causes mental illnesses has as much merit as saying the USA has become richer and mental illness has increased therefore... Thirdly conservatism has not been ruled out as a cause of mental illness by saying it's not taught much. Fourthly your hypothesis is clearly untestable because as you state there are "very little conservative teachings anywhere". You also need to present reasoning as to why the Stephen Fry thing is relevant.

: When someone has a stomach ache, the first suspect is the food he ate. When someone has a mental problem, the first suspect is what he was taught, and that is liberal. Your alternative hypotheses make as little sense as suspecting that the weather caused someone's stomach ache rather than what he just ate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:05, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
: That's begging the question. You're just asserting that the prime cause for mental problems is an education, and as education is liberal, therefore liberalism causes mental problems - but whether school education causes mental problems is the point of contention! The vast majority of psychologists have pointed to other causes of mental illnesses (and as I stated, you have yet to provide a reference to a qualified academic who does claim school education causes mental illness) such as abuse as a child, extreme problems in social interaction and recently, genetics. I will restate my point, the fact that your school education has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorder is as relevant as saying the fact that you drive a car has not been dismissed as a cause of mental disorders. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:33, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, recent consumption is commonly the culprit is stomach aches, but not the only possible cause. Stomach pains could also be due hunger, infection, a punch in the gut, receiving some very bad news, overexertion, dehydration, severe vomiting, muscle spasms due to envenomation, or even presumably a side effect of some type of allergic reaction. It's a case-by-case thing- suspecting the weather as the culprit does make sense if that person was just struck by lightning- you can't just dismiss it outright. Therefore there are multiple possible causes. While it is not unreasonable to assume that food is generally the most like cause, this logic does not translate to mental illness and education. As has been pointed out, you fail to back up your claims with any outside sources- where are the experts (those that actually study and treat mental illness) saying that education is the prime cause? To reiterate a previous point, what about family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences, environmental toxins- those factors that actually have been shown to influence the development of mental illness? And simply dismissing JohnyGoodman's "alternative hypotheses" doesn't work either- there is a mathematical correlation between increasing mental illness rates and number of licensed drivers. In addition, most cases of mental illness occur in individuals who are over the minimum driving age. Thus drivers have a higher risk of mental illness (obviously due to the stress of the road, maintaining a vehicle, and let's not forget the DMV) and increasing numbers of drivers increase the national burden. That's at least the same degree of correlation as the education claim. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:59, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Well it would be polite to receive some kind of response to our points, even if its going to be "liberal claptrap" as usual. I honestly don't see why such edits as already made aren't allowed to take place.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 11:29, 18 August 2008 (EDT)]#
:I laugh when I read you laying down the law about what is and what isn't polite, not to mention prejudging the response you might get in an insulting manner! Though, in fairness, you are correct in your prediction (thus displaying a level of self-awareness rare in [[Liberals]]. Claptrap is a polite description of your outpourings, and you are not in a position to demand attention in such an arrogant fashion. Try and amend your behaviour in future, or you may find that Conservapedia is not the place for you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:34, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
::Okay, let's pause and consider that if you read a post expecting it to be hostile, you will inevitably find it offensive regardless of how innocuous the wording is. Emotion is most effectively conveyed visually and through speech, not written text- thus there are limits to determining attitude. As such, a reader can easily introduce hostility where none was intended. Second, "it would be polite to receive some sort of response" doesn't qualify as "laying down the law". And precisely what was hostile and arrogant about asking for a response? I'm not being confrontational or sarcastic about this- I'm honestly curious. Commentators here often find insult in the most innocuous wording and I would like to know which part of JohnyGoodman's comment was to blame so it can be avoided in the future. Most importantly, if you perceive insult, explain it- don't accuse the offending party of being arrogant or to "amend their behaviour". Meeting perceived hostility with aggression only exacerbates the situation and reduces - or removes- the quality of the discussion. In addition, it denigrates the discussion when detailed responses are dismissed as "liberal claptrap" with a wave of the hand without addressing the post itself. In this case, "liberal" has been used simply as name-calling against anyone who does not agree about a given point. The driving example was used only to demonstrate the inadequacy of the "causation from correlation" and "gap theory" approaches that have been used- without any further reasoning- to justify the claim of this page. The logic is precisely the same. If you disagree, please explain- that's what the discussion is for. You're welcome to do so. Really. I would be interested to read it. But simply saying "you're arrogant, offensive and wrong" does a disservice to the very idea of open dialog and accomplishes nothing. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 16:53, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps Bugler would like to shed light on this "claptrap". Presumably he has a reference to a noted academic who supports the thesis proposed here. Or perhaps he accepts that the "liberalism causes mental illness" theory should be considered just as the "hardback books cause mental illness" theory should be considered. Perhaps he has a wealth of evidence that proves that psychologists have been wrong all this time when arguing that "family history, socioeconomic status, past negative experiences and environmental toxins" are the real, documented causes of mental illness. Or, as I suspect, he is content with merely throwing words like "liberal" and "arrogant" around rather than arguing a case.[[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:35, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

== Stephen Fry==

Just for the record, Stephen Fry went to several "Public" i.e. non state schools for his education. (These, I guess, would be the equivalent of "private" i.e. fee paying schools in the USA and are in no way connected with the UK state school system.) If I understand it correctly, having been to part of Rugby school myself many years ago, Uppingham school, where Mr Fry went for the majority of his adolescent schooling, offers a ciriculum based firmly on Chirstianity and would be anything but "Liberal" - in any sense of the word. No sure how this squares with him then suffering from depression in later life. [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: I doubt private schools in the [[U.K.]] are "based firmly on Christianity." Rather, I'm confident that the private schools in the [[U.K.]] are as [[leftist]] as public schools in the [[U.S.]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::As an old boy of another well-known British "Public School", Wellington College, I must respectfully undermine your confidence. In the case of Stephen Fry, he went to Uppingham School, which is one of the old traditional public schools founded in the 16th Century by a Bishop. While most of these schools are no longer religiously sponsored, they are in the majority firmly wedded to Christianity with their own chapels and vicars and are renown for being bastions of conservatism in a comparatively liberal British education system. I myself was confirmed at Wellington which was normal practice for all pupils at the school and Sunday chapel was compulsory (unless you were one of the few non-Church of England pupils in which case compulsory alternative worship was organised at a local Catholic church or whatever).

::Besides, I'm not sure that Stephen Fry is a good example of what you are trying to demonstrate. He was, after all, expelled from the school when he was fifteen and subsequently expelled from another. His behaviour went against the rules of those schools so the cause does not appear to have been liberal teaching up to that point. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:01, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: You are construing "liberal teachings" too literally, and I've noticed that liberals are often overly literal in their approach. The concept of "teachings" is not confined to school. If Fry was expelled from school as a teenager as you say, then he simply picked up "teachings" from somewhere else, such as liberal newspapers and books. The comments above do not in any way undermine use of his example, as there is no doubt that Fry fully embraced liberal teachings in its full sense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::While I agree that what somewhat is taught is not limited to the classroom, the reason for referring to his schooling in particular is that the article points heavily to public schools. In fact, the list that is provided specifically refers to "teachings in school". Thus interpreting the Stephen Fry example in the context of school is not "overly literal", as doing so is within the context of the rest of the page. If you do not mean to focus the discussion on schools alone, the article should be expanded to encompass the other avenues you pointed out. As for Fry, giving an example of a single individual who was both liberal and had mental illness does not add substance to the article (nor does discussing it accomplish anything). As has been discussed elsewhere on this page, there are a great many established factors that can contribute to mental illness. Knowing nothing about his early clinical and emotional history precludes any judgment either way. To use the stomach ache analogy, if someone gets bad stomach cramps and has peanut allergies, it doesn't necessarily follow that the latter caused the former- maybe, maybe not. Having the doctor remind them not to eat peanuts without asking what they actually had been eating fails to diagnose the problem. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: There may well be other factors causing mental illness, but it's sheer folly to deny that teachings are a factor. Once you accept that, it's silly to think that all ideological teachings have the same effects, and there is no reason to think they would all be equal in influence on mental health.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::I never said teachings couldn't be a factor. It is certainly possible that some are. The problem here is that you focus specifically on one kind, which is a wildly exaggerated and inaccurate description of the typical American public school. Another problem is that while I agree that "there is no reason to think [ideological teachings] would all be equal in influence on mental health", the article is about teachings ''causing'' mental illness. As JamalG alludes to below, ''influence'' and ''cause'' are not synonymous. If someone was taught as you outlined (which, again, is simply false regarding typical public schools), they will probably emerge as less-than-upstanding citizens, to say the least, but that doesn't constitute "illness". On the other hand, they may well develop bona-fide mental illness if they are also abused at home, or are outcasts among their peers, etc. In that respect, you could improve the validity of your claim by discussing influences rather than trying to outline a single ''cause'' by providing an exaggerated list. [[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 19:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::In Pyschology today we use what is known as the BioPsychoSocial approach. In essence, it means that when diagnosing a problem, the Pyschologist should take into account their Biographical information (Genetic History, brain function and such) They're Psychological information (thinking abilities, emotions, and motivations) and the Social information (Family, Ethnicity, Social Class). What you have done is completely ignore two of the three to focus solely on the so called Liberal teachings. If your argument is true, why in mental illness still relatively rare. Millions of people in the united states and the world have come from these dangerous liberal schools, yet merely a few hundred thousand are diagnosed with serious mental illness. You seem to be working backwards from your conclusion to find links. [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 11:04, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Just to put the record straight, since there appears to be some misunderstanding about the type of schools that English “Public “ schools are and in particular about the school Mr Fry attended, the following extracts from two “Public “ school websites might be of interest and will, hopefully, clear up any confusion which American readers might have about the role religion in general, and Christianity in particular, plays in the life of anyone attending English “Public” schools:

Uppingham
A typical day starts with breakfast in the House, followed by, most mornings, a brief assembly in Chapel for the whole school, which is either an act of corporate worship, or a talk or presentation by a member of staff………..On Sunday there is normally a Chapel service in the morning…………
Spiritual Life

Uppingham is a Christian Foundation. That was the intention of Uppingham's Founder, Archdeacon Robert Johnson in 1584, and it remains the policy of the School today. In worship, in our relationships and in its teaching the School, is committed to the expression of the Christian Faith, both explicitly in Chapel and the classroom, and implicitly in our life together. Some Uppinghamians are members of other faiths and every consideration is given to their needs, but parents and intending students should bear in mind that all attend services in Chapel on Sundays and on some weekdays. In fact, we meet four times a week in Chapel for a service. The consequent sense of belonging to a community is, we believe, enormously worthwhile, important, and sustaining to all who are members of Uppingham School.

(http://www.uppingham.co.uk/)

Rugby

The School is a Christian foundation which encourages spiritual development in the context of rational enquiry. Chapel is at the heart of School life with morning prayers three mornings a week and on Sundays. The School population is held at 800 so that the whole community can regularly meet together. Christians are confirmed every year whilst others choose to worship in their own tradition: whatever the faith of the individual the Chaplaincy plays a key role in the pastoral life of the School. ……
(http://www.rugbyschool.net/school/ethosandvision/)

[[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 11:19, 21 August 2008 (EDT) (Sorry about the mess up with the post a minite ago...bad case of thick thumb syndrome!)

::The 1944 Education Act prescribes a ''daily'' act of communal worship, so Rugby is in breach of the letter of the law, and I think it is safe to assume, in the context of modern British education, that it is in breach of the spirit of it as well. As for Uppingham, it is well known as one of the most Liberal of the British public schools, and even the most Liberal schools have rules of some sort that can be broken. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:45, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Thank you, Bugler, for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:56, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Aschlafly, actually, I wasn't interpreting anything, rather that, because of his very traditional educational background and subsequent expulsion from it, Stephen Fry might not be a good example of "liberal teachings" leading to mental illness. If his education and indeed his traditional social background did have any effect, it might have been what he was rebelling against. Or, of course, he might just have been ill because of other causes. While he might have been influenced by a socialist family member or been seduced by communist newsletters, I maintain that a better example to back up your ideas might be found that includes the subject's liberal formal education. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Bulger, some consider it somewhat avant garde because it specialises in arts, music and drama, much like Milfield does for sports. And yes, it might possibly be more liberal than say Eton, Harrow or Radley. But even so, it is old-fashioned Anglican Christian, has very strict codes of conduct and school rules, receives pupils from generally conservative establishment families, and maintains a socially conservative pastoral care programme. And when Fry was there, I imagine it to have been more conservative than it is now. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 13:13, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::I see that its alumni include - as well as Fry, convicted and incarcerated for cheque fraud - the TV presenter Johnny Vaughan (convicted and gaoled for cocaine dealing) and celebrity chef and notorious adulterer Rick Stein. That pastoral care programme must be working wonders. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:33, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Given that that well known Liberal MP Winston Churchill suffered from the same "mental illness" as Stephen Fry,i.e. depression; that both went to English Public schools, both were the children or grand children of immigrants and both were friends at one time or another with the heir to the English throne I would have to agree that there's something strange going on here. But is it a conservative English education, the proximity to royalty or a combination of biological, psychological and social factors or exposure to a liberal education that predisposes one to depression? Take your pick! [[User:BetsyNewson|BetsyNewson]] 13:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::Bulger, as was Tim Melville-Ross (former head of CBI and Institute of Directors), Dickson Poon (businessman and non-executive Chairman of Harvey Nichols), Jonathan Agnew (England cricketer and Chief Cricket Correspondent for BBC Radio), Donald Campbell (world water speed record holder, killed on Coniston Water in Bluebird), and Sir Patrick Renison (Governor of Kenya).

::::::Hardly a line-up of liberal scum :) [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 15:50, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
It's also worth mentioning that Stephen Fry's depression is the product of Bipolar disorder which is largely a genetic disease. Environmental factors do play a role, but these factors do not include "liberal education". [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 17:59, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: As a general matter, surely you don't dispute that beliefs, values and/or conduct can exacerbate or alleviate mental problems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:02, 21 August 2008 (EDT)
I do dispute that. I have not heard one argument from an academic that supports that position, and I don't suppose you can provide a reference to any. I'd be much more willing that the old British education system - beatings by the headmaster and all - would be more likely to cause depression and mental illness. If anything, beliefs, values and conduct are a ''product'' or ''expression'' of mental illness, so the real "mystery" would have to be "Does mental illness cause Liberalism?". But I have not heard one noted psychologist argue that liberalism is a result of insanity, rather belief that there is a vast conspiracy against you (and your beliefs) would be an example of a belief caused by mental illness. And before you claim that liberals believe there is a vast conspiracy against them, I'd remind you of views such as "Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by liberal environmentalists" and "99% of scientists are suppressing evidence against evolution" and "liberals are forcing their views on children through the education system" and "liberal government is trying to destroy christianity" and so on. Not saying that anyone here is mentally ill, but that labeling people as such works both ways. [[User:JohnyGoodman|JohnyGoodman]] 23:25, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why the reversion? ==

The expected rise in dementia and increased funding requirement are due to an expanding geriatric population. Why did you remove that?
--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 19:51, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at the article and it doesn't say that. Of course older people tend to have more health problems, but that is not the only or even the primary cause, as far as I can tell from the article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::These are the quotes from the article which makes it fairly clear the reason for the rise in number of dementia patients:
This latest analysis, however, signals that without sustained funding increases services will come under renewed pressure as numbers of people suffering from mental illness '''increase in line with an expanding and ageing population'''.Conditions such as dementia will be a major driver of demand for mental health services"
"With the number of elderly people expected to increase substantially over the next 20 years,
the incidence and cost of dementia will also rise, putting further strain on
mental health services and budgets."--[[User:StanleyB|StanleyB]] 20:05, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Right, and lung cancer incidence also increases with age. That doesn't diminish other primary causes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:21, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-21T21:59:33Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Stephen Fry */

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-21T21:59:21Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Stephen Fry */

Jonathan Edwards (athlete)

2008-08-21T21:56:50Z

JohnyGoodman: New page: '''Jonathon Edwards''' is a British former athlete, arguably the greatest ever triple jumper. He set three world records, and was the first to jump over 18 metres. He has held the world re...

'''Jonathon Edwards''' is a British former athlete, arguably the greatest ever triple jumper. He set three world records, and was the first to jump over 18 metres. He has held the world record of 18.29 metres since 1995, although earlier that year he had jumped 18.43 metres with wind assistance. He won a gold medal at the 2000 Summer [[Olympics]] in Sydney, and a silver medal at the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta. He also won two gold medals in the World Championships. He retired from Triple Jumping after the Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002.

He was a publicly devout [[christian]], not attending the World Championships in 1991 because he would not compete on Sundays. After his retirement he presented the BBC program "Songs of Praise" until 2007, and also presented a documentary on [[St Paul]]. However, since his departure from Songs of Praise he has given interviews confirming his rejection of the Christian faith, telling The Times in 2007 that "When you think about it rationally, it does seem incredibly improbable that there is a God." and "I feel internally happier than at any time of my life."

Fermat's Last Theorem

2008-08-21T21:43:36Z

JohnyGoodman:

[[Image:Pierre de Fermat.jpg|thumb|right|Pierre de Fermat]]

'''Fermat's Last Theorem''' asserts that the well-known [[Pythagorean Theorem]] has no solutions for higher powers. That is,
:<math>a^2 + b^2 = c^2</math>
has infinitely many solutions, such as {3, 4, 5} or {5, 12, 13}; but

:<math>a^3 + b^3 = c^3</math>

has no solutions using positive whole numbers.

It was conjectured by the French mathematician [[Pierre de Fermat]]. He said he had proved this problem but that there was not enough room in the margin to state his proof:<ref>Nagell 1951, p. 252.</ref>

:"Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadrato-quadratum in duos quadrato-quadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet."

The English translation of Fermat's Latin statement is:<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html</ref>

:"It is impossible for a cube to be the sum of two cubes, a fourth power to be the sum of two fourth powers, or in general for any number that is a power greater than the second to be the sum of two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain."

This problem has confounded mathematicians for centuries, and there still is no proof for it using [[elementary techniques]]. [[Gauss]] and other mathematicians doubt that Fermat was able to prove it himself, but [[Cal Tech]] mathematics Professor E.T. Bell, who wrote the standard biography of all the great mathematicians, wryly observed that "the fox who could not get at the grapes declared they were sour." <ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics" 72 (1937).</ref> "And so for all of [Fermat's] positive assertions with the one exception of the seemingly simple one which he made in his Last Theorem and which mathematicians, struggling for nearly 300 years, have been unable to prove: whenever Fermat asserted that he had ''proved'' anything, the statement, with the one exception noted, has subsequently been proved. Both his scrupulously honest character and his unrivalled penetration as an arithmetician substantiate the claim made for him by some, but not by all, that he knew what he was talking about when he asserted that he possessed a proof of his theorem."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics" 71 (1937).</ref>

The theorem is as follows:
[[Image:Wiles.png|thumb|right|Andrew Wiles]]
For integers n > 2, there are no nonzero integral solutions to: xn + yn = zn

In the summer of 1986, Ken Ribet proved that Fermat's Last Theorem is a special case of the [[Taniyama–Shimura Conjecture]].

In a series of lectures in 1993, mathematician [[Andrew Wiles]] announced a proof using techniques in algebraic geometry, relying on the nonconstructive [[Axiom of Choice]].<ref name="Occam">http://www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf Page 5</ref> A flaw was found before publication, and Wiles spent a year on fixing the flaw. Then, in September 1994, he and Richard Taylor announced a new version of the proof. However, criticism does continue on the internet.<ref name="Occam" /> Further criticism came from [[Marilyn vos Savant]], known for her very high [[IQ]] and commentary on [[mathematics]], in her column and book.<ref>Ask Marilyn ® by Marilyn vos Savant, Parade Magazine. November 21, 1993</ref><ref>''The World's Most Famous Math Problem: The Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries'', Marilyn vos Savant. St. Martin's Griffin, 1993</ref> She questioned the use of [[Non-Euclidean geometry]] and the Axiom of Choice, among other points. She retracted her argument in a 1995 addendum to the book.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Fermat's Last Theorem

2008-08-21T21:43:18Z

JohnyGoodman:

[[Image:Pierre de Fermat.jpg|thumb|right|Pierre de Fermat]]

'''Fermat's Last Theorem''' asserts that the well-known [[Pythagorean Theorem]] has no solutions for higher powers. That is,
:<math>a^2 + b^2 = c^2</math>
has infinitely many solutions, such as {3, 4, 5} or {5, 12, 13}; but

:<math>a^3 + b^3 = c^3</math>

has no solutions using positive whole numbers.

It was conjectured by the French mathematician [[Pierre de Fermat]]. He said he had proved this problem but that there was not enough room in the margin to state his proof:<ref>Nagell 1951, p. 252.</ref>

:"Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadrato-quadratum in duos quadrato-quadratos, et generaliter nullam in infinitum ultra quadratum potestatem in duos eiusdem nominis fas est dividere cuius rei demonstrationem mirabilem sane detexi. Hanc marginis exiguitas non caperet."

The English translation of Fermat's Latin statement is:<ref>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/FermatsLastTheorem.html</ref>

:"It is impossible for a cube to be the sum of two cubes, a fourth power to be the sum of two fourth powers, or in general for any number that is a power greater than the second to be the sum of two like powers. I have discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain."

This problem has confounded mathematicians for centuries, and there still is no proof for it using [[elementary techniques]]. [[Gauss]] and other mathematicians doubt that Fermat was able to prove it himself, but [[Cal Tech]] mathematics Professor E.T. Bell, who wrote the standard biography of all the great mathematicians, wryly observed that "the fox who could not get at the grapes declared they were sour." <ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics" 72 (1937).</ref> "And so for all of [Fermat's] positive assertions with the one exception of the seemingly simple one which he made in his Last Theorem and which mathematicians, struggling for nearly 300 years, have been unable to prove: whenever Fermat asserted that he had ''proved'' anything, the statement, with the one exception noted, has subsequently been proved. Both his scrupulously honest character and his unrivalled penetration as an arithmetician substantiate the claim made for him by some, but not by all, that he knew what he was talking about when he asserted that he possessed a proof of his theorem."<ref>E.T. Bell, "Men of Mathematics" 71 (1937).</ref>

The theorem is as follows:
[[Image:Wiles.png|thumb|right|Andrew Wiles]]
For integers n > 2, there are no nonzero integral solutions to: xn + yn = zn

In the summer of 1986, Ken Ribet proved that Fermat's Last Theorem is a special case of the [[Taniyama–Shimura Conjecture]].

In a series of lectures in 1993, mathematician [[Andrew Wiles]] announced a proof using techniques in algebraic geometry, relying on the nonconstructive [[Axiom of Choice]].<ref name="Occam">http://www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf Page 5</ref> A flaw was found before publication, and Wiles spent a year on fixing the flaw. Then, in September 1994, he and Richard Taylor announced a new version of the proof. However, criticism does continue on the internet.<ref name="Occam" /> Further criticism came from [[Marilyn vos Savant]], known for her very high [[IQ]] and commentary on [[mathematics]], in her column and book.<ref>Ask Marilyn ® by Marilyn vos Savant, Parade Magazine. November 21, 1993</ref><ref>''The World's Most Famous Math Problem: The Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem and Other Mathematical Mysteries'', Marilyn vos Savant. St. Martin's Griffin, 1993</ref> She questioned the use of [[Non-Euclidean geometry]] and the Axiom of Choice, among other points. In 1996 she retracted her argument in a 1995 addendum to the book.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-18T21:35:45Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Reversion of edits */

Weapons of mass destruction

2008-08-18T21:04:49Z

JohnyGoodman:

'''Weapons of Mass Destruction''' or '''WMD''' are weapons designed to kill a large number of people. WMD begins with research and development among persons with highly specialized scientific and technical training. This requires a location and resources to employ such persons with know-how to build production facilities of WMD. Once a location, resources, know-how and production facilities are employed, stockpiles can be built. While production facilities and the human know-how to manufacture WMD are necessary for their creation, according to U.S. Law, those factors exclusively are not considered weapons of mass destruction.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are known to have been held by large superpowers such as the [[United States]] and [[Russia]], as well as smaller countries such as [[Iraq]], [[North Korea]] and [[Israel]].

Know-how is the most dangerous aspect of WMD in today's world; persons who receive classroom training in these specialized techniques can travel anywhere in the world where location and resources may be available to produce WMD. Also, communicating the know-how, a potentially lethal weapon to large numbers of people, is largely unregulated in some parts of the world. There are [[United Nations]] Treaties which have attempted to regulate the spread of know-how throughout the world, but it is still possible for a person with know-how to communicate their knowledge how to manufacture WMD to anyone, without the signatory of the International agreements who holds their place of citizenship knowing of the illegal transfer or being able to stop it.

The international scientific community of technicians with knowledge to teach and manufacture weapons of mass destructions likewise consist of independent persons, some with no national loyalties to the nations who have signed international agreements barring the spread of WMD, i.e. the know-how, potential "dual use" technologies, or the end manufactured result. A young person trained today, in an al-Qaeda training camp, in the methods of producing stockpiles of WMD, has an entire lifespan to communicate his knowledge to whomsoever he pleases. And a persons political or ideological views can change over a lifetime. In the old Soviet system, scientists were often retired to special [[Gulag]]s apart from the rest of society, so as there would be no chance they can reveal the potential lethal know-how to unauthorized persons.

One of the most troubling aspects of the [[War on Terror]] is understanding that scientific knowledge itself has become a weapon in the hands of dangerous persons against innocent people.

In times of crisis, the habit has been to call upon our best, brightest and most talented individuals to find solutions. This usually in the past meant scientists and technicians; now we have discovered in the War on Terror knowledge itself has become a dangerous thing, and new gadgets and technology cannot defeat terrorist cells who do not wear the easily identifiable military uniforms as is custom throughout the Western world. In fact, we've discovered past scientific and technical solutions in warfare now threaten the civil populations of the nations that discovered and built them. Knowledge indeed is a weapon.

== Types of WMD ==

Weapons of mass destruction were defined by the U.S. military, as late as the 1980s, as [[nuclear weapons]], [[chemical weapons]], and [[biological weapons]] (or NBC) designed to kill large numbers of personnel or civilians with a single device. Radiological weapons are now also considered WMD.

The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" can be traced as far back as 1937, in reference to the aerial bombing of [[Guernica]], Spain, during the Spanish Civil War.

==Saddam Hussein and WMD==

[[Egypt]]ian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> While no WMDs were found in Iraq, the program for such was discovered to be in place, and there is speculation that they were exported to neighbouring countries before the [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|war]].<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/15/ndoss115.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/15/ixnewstop.html Report holds out the possibility that WMD may still be found...one day] The Telegraph. July 14, 2004</ref>.

Former [[First Lady]] and now Senator [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said on October 10, 2002,
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/wmd/ What Liberals Say - Category: WMD], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[category:politics]]

Weapons of mass destruction

2008-08-18T21:04:27Z

JohnyGoodman:

'''Weapons of Mass Destruction''' or '''WMD''' are weapons designed to kill a large number of people. WMD begins with research and development among persons with highly specialized scientific and technical training. This requires a location and resources to employ such persons with know-how to build production facilities of WMD. Once a location, resources, know-how and production facilities are employed, stockpiles can be built. While production facilities and the human know-how to manufacture WMD are necessary for their creation, according to U.S. Law, those factors exclusively are not considered weapons of mass destruction.

Weapons of Mass Destruction are known to have been held by large superpowers such as the [[United States]] and [[Russia]], as well as smaller countries such as [[Iraq]], [[North Korea]] and [[Israel]].

Know-how is the most dangerous aspect of WMD in today's world; persons who receive classroom training in these specialized techniques can travel anywhere in the world where location and resources may be available to produce WMD. Also, communicating the know-how, a potentially lethal weapon to large numbers of people, is largely unregulated in some parts of the world. There are [[United Nations]] Treaties which have attempted to regulate the spread of know-how throughout the world, but it is still possible for a person with know-how to communicate their knowledge how to manufacture WMD to anyone, without the signatory of the International agreements who holds their place of citizenship knowing of the illegal transfer or being able to stop it.

The international scientific community of technicians with knowledge to teach and manufacture weapons of mass destructions likewise consist of independent persons, some with no national loyalties to the nations who have signed international agreements barring the spread of WMD, i.e. the know-how, potential "dual use" technologies, or the end manufactured result. A young person trained today, in an al-Qaeda training camp, in the methods of producing stockpiles of WMD, has an entire lifespan to communicate his knowledge to whomsoever he pleases. And a persons political or ideological views can change over a lifetime. In the old Soviet system, scientists were often retired to special [[Gulag]]s apart from the rest of society, so as there would be no chance they can reveal the potential lethal know-how to unauthorized persons.

One of the most troubling aspects of the [[War on Terror]] is understanding that scientific knowledge itself has become a weapon in the hands of dangerous persons against innocent people.

In times of crisis, the habit has been to call upon our best, brightest and most talented individuals to find solutions. This usually in the past meant scientists and technicians; now we have discovered in the War on Terror knowledge itself has become a dangerous thing, and new gadgets and technology cannot defeat terrorist cells who do not wear the easily identifiable military uniforms as is custom throughout the Western world. In fact, we've discovered past scientific and technical solutions in warfare now threaten the civil populations of the nations that discovered and built them. Knowledge indeed is a weapon.

== Types of WMD ==

Weapons of mass destruction were defined by the U.S. military, as late as the 1980s, as [[nuclear weapons]], [[chemical weapons]], and [[biological weapons]] (or NBC) designed to kill large numbers of personnel or civilians with a single device. Radiological weapons are now also considered WMD.

The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" can be traced as far back as 1937, in reference to the aerial bombing of [[Guernica]], Spain, during the Spanish Civil War.

==Saddam Hussein and WMD==

[[Egypt]]ian President [[Hosni Mubarek]] and Libyan [[Socialist]] General Secretary [[Muammar Gaddafi]] in negotiations with [[Saddam Hussein]] relayed a message through Italian Prime Minister [[Silvio Berlusconi]] and Spanish President [[Jose Maria Aznar]] to UK Prime Minister [[Tony Blair]] and US President [[George W. Bush]] that Saddam would be willing to avoid removal by force and voluntarily go into exile, provided Saddam was allowed to take $1 billion dollars and "all the information he wants about [[weapons of mass destruction]]." <ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/09/saddam_risked_his_life_for_wmd_1.asp Saddam Risked His Life for WMD Secrets], ''WeeklyStandard.com. Spetember 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003646639 Scoop for Spanish Daily: Transcript of Private 2003 Bush Talk Promising Iraq Invasion], ''Editor & Publisher'', September 26, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html Report Says Hussein Was Open To Exile Before 2003 Invasion], He Is Said to Have Sought $1 Billion and Information on Arms, By Karen DeYoung and Michael Abramowitz, ''[[Washington Post]], September 27, 2007; Page A17.</ref><ref>[http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam], ''El Pais'', 26/09/2007. (In Spanish).</ref> While no WMDs were found in Iraq, the program for such was discovered to be in place, and there is speculation that they were exported to neighbouring countries before the [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|war]].<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/15/ndoss115.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/15/ixnewstop.html Report holds out the possibility that WMD may still be found...one day] The Telegraph. July 14, 2004</ref>.

Former [[First Lady]] and now Senator[[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] said on October 10, 2002,
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/wmd/ What Liberals Say - Category: WMD], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[category:politics]]

PZ Myers

2008-08-18T19:56:17Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Debating */

'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is an [[evolutionist]] activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate [[professor]] of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota Morris]] (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref>

PZ Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> According to ''Evolution News'', he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by "Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory." <ref>Egnor, Michael [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/pz_myers_darwinists_know_whats.html ''P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What’s Best for Your Children''] Evolution News December 18, 2007</ref>

== Militant atheism ==

Myers is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

{{QuoteBox|I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>}}

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php/</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/how_do_you_save_small_town_cha.php</ref>

Unsurprisingly, Myers' radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him]] by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans.

=== Debating ===

In January 2008, Myers participated in a debate with Discovery Institute fellow Geoffrey Simmons on KMMS. He was unable to counter criticisms of the fossil record, in particular the absence of transitional forms in the whale fossil record. Geoffrey was invited back for an hour long talk the next week. PZ Myers now refuses to debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ</ref>

=== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ===

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the [[Mall of America]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.

=== Communion host ===

On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers quickly ducked behind the "satire and protest" defense<ref>'Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I was only joking!" '({{Bible ref|Proverbs|26|18-19}})</ref> and backed down on his threat to desecrate Communion wafers.<ref>http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses (one of which was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers) had been spoofed.<ref>The husband of the user of the the 1-800-Flowers address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail. (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html) The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message." (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref>
Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>

==References ==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula Pharyngula]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]

PZ Myers

2008-08-18T19:55:55Z

JohnyGoodman:

'''Paul Zachary Myers''', better known as '''PZ Myers''', is an [[evolutionist]] activist in the [[creation-evolution controversy]], contributing to [[The Panda's Thumb (blog)|The Panda's Thumb]] and [[Pharyngula (blog)|Pharyngula]] blogs. Myers is also an associate [[professor]] of [[biology]] at the [[University of Minnesota Morris]] (UMM)<ref name="citypages">[http://citypages.com/databank/26/1303/article13908.asp?page=1 ''The Mad Scientist''] City Pages, Volume 26 - Issue 1303, November 23, 2005 Cover story</ref>

PZ Myers commented, while listening to [[Michael Behe]] lecture on [[Intelligent design]], that "In science, we scream a lot."<ref name="citypages"/> According to ''Evolution News'', he opposes democratically-elected school boards deciding how evolution should be taught; feeling that it should instead be done by "Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory." <ref>Egnor, Michael [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/12/pz_myers_darwinists_know_whats.html ''P.Z. Myers: Darwinists Know What’s Best for Your Children''] Evolution News December 18, 2007</ref>

== Militant atheism ==

Myers is an outspoken [[atheism|atheist]] who has openly advocated the elimination of religion, likening it to illiteracy.<ref>http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/03/pz-myers-on-eliminating-religion.html</ref>
His language is extremely militant at times, and laced with expletives. In a diatribe in which he described those who believe in the Bible as "lunatics" and "bigots," Myers said:

{{QuoteBox|I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070420142719/http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/perspective/</ref>}}

PZ Myers frequently rants against religion, religious people, and religious institutions (e.g. churches) on his blog. Myers has called evangelical Christianity "a blight upon the earth,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/left_or_right_religion_and_pol.php/</ref> religious people "ignorant, deluded, wicked, foolish, or oppressed victims of obsolete mythologies,"<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php</ref> and considers every church to be a "parasitic institution that contributes nothing to the tax base and encourages further ignorance in the population."<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/how_do_you_save_small_town_cha.php</ref>

Unsurprisingly, Myers' radical, hateful views on religion and religious people are [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|whitewashed from the Wikipedia article about him]] by pro-evolution/anti-Creationism/anti-Intelligent Design editors who are his fans.

== Debating ==

In January 2008, Myers participated in a debate with Discovery Institute fellow Geoffrey Simmons on KMMS. He was unable to counter criticisms of the fossil record, in particular the absence of transitional forms in the whale fossil record. Geoffrey was invited back for an hour long talk the next week. PZ Myers now refuses to debate creation scientists.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk5Y3VoBeVQ</ref>

=== ''Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'' ===

Myers appeared in the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]''. In the film, Myers compared religion to knitting and said it should be nothing more than "something fun that people get together and do on the weekend and really doesn't affect their life as much as it has been so far."<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHiZjOH1NmQ</ref> Up to and after the release of the film, PZ Myers viciously attacked the film and its makers many times and engaged in bizarre behavior. Two of the most notable incidents involved his failed attempt to gate-crash a showing of the film at the [[Mall of America]]<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/science/21expelledw.html</ref> and his crashing and disruption (including plugging himself) of a conference call held by ''Expelled'''s producers after calling in early (likely to eavesdrop) and overhearing and then dishonestly using the phone code that allowed two-way communication.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYAblaZmogA</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/i_always_aim_to_misbehave.php</ref> Most bizarrely, in the latter incident, Myers interruption of the producers' call began with his referring to himself in the third person, probably in an attempt to conceal both his identity and the fact that he used a phone code he was not authorized to use.

=== Communion host ===

On July 8, 2008, PZ Myers posted an entry attacking Roman Catholic beliefs regards Communion. He was reacting to a news story, in which a student at the University of Central Florida described a physical confrontation over his failure to consume a communion wafer.<ref>'Body Of Christ' Snatched From Church, Held Hostage By UCF Student, July 5, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html]</ref><ref>'Body Of Christ" Returned To Church After Student Receives Email Threats, July 7, 2008[http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html]</ref> After ridiculing some people as "petty, hateful, and stupid," and asserting that "nothing makes them stupider than religion," Myers requested that his readers steal consecrated Communion wafers for him, so that he could desecrate them on camera. This rant predictably resulted in a strongly negative response from Catholics and those who support freedom of religious expression <ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1459</ref>; Myers has since complained about the "hate mail" and "death threats" he has received, comparing the defense of Communion to a "witch hunt." To date, the University of Minnesota has not taken official action against Myers for his inflammatory remarks, other than to remove the link to his blog from his faculty page.<ref>http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1460</ref> PZ Myers quickly ducked behind the "satire and protest" defense<ref>'Like a madman shooting firebrands or deadly arrows is a man who deceives his neighbor and says, "I was only joking!" '({{Bible ref|Proverbs|26|18-19}})</ref> and backed down on his threat to desecrate Communion wafers.<ref>http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/24313139.html</ref>

Meanwhile, Myers posted two vitriolic emails he had received and included the email addresses where they supposedly had come from. Predictably, his readers responded with their own threatening and harassing emails even though at the time it was not clear whether or not the email addresses (one of which was allegedly from someone at 1-800-Flowers) had been spoofed.<ref>The husband of the user of the the 1-800-Flowers address subsequently owned up to sending the e-mail. (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html) The account owner was fired by the company. Myers commented on the firing, saying, "She apparently did something stupid, which I don't have sympathy for. I would just rather not see people getting fired over an e-mail message." (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html?page=2)</ref>
Myers attempted to save face, claiming that the unsurprising behavior by his readers was not the intent behind his posting of the email addresses, and called for his readers to stop "dunning these people with email, threatening them back, signing them up for spam, or otherwise being a jerk." These pleas fell on deaf ears, while PZ Myers continued to avoid doing the obvious thing in simply removing the email addresses from his blog.<ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/stop_it_now_please.php</ref><ref>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php</ref>

==References ==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula Pharyngula]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Myers, Paul Zachary}}

[[Category:Evolution]]
[[Category:Biologists]]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-18T15:29:03Z

JohnyGoodman:

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-16T21:33:06Z

JohnyGoodman:

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-16T20:49:58Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Reversion of edits */

Battle of Agincourt

2008-08-16T20:09:08Z

JohnyGoodman:

[[Image:agincourt.gif|400px|thumb|right]]
'''The Battle of Agincourt''' was a decisive battle in the [[Hundred Years War]]. An estimated 30,000 French troops were under the command of Constable [[Charles D’Albret]] and 6,000 English troops, under the command of King [[Henry V]], participated in this battle. However, a modern re-assessment of the number of troops present at the battle suggests they may have numbered as many as 9,000 on the English side and as few as 12,000 on the French side, although these numbers are not consistent with eyewitness accounts.

The Battle of Agincourt resulted in an upset victory for the British that can be credited in large part to the the power of the English [[longbow]].

== Troop Formations ==
On October 25, 1415 both armies arose before dawn and arrayed themselves for battle. The battlefield was bordered by a thick forest on either side that prevented the superior French force, who outnumbered the English 5 to 1, from out-flanking the English army. The French formed three lines. Flanked by the French cavalry, the first two lines were made of dismounted men-at-arms while the third was mounted. The French archers and crossbowmen were placed behind the first line. The English assumed a single line of 900 men-at-arms with 2,500 archers placed on either side.

== The Battle ==
The English line advanced to within the extremity of long bow range and began to fire upon the first French line. An English archer was capable of firing up to ten shots per minute; by the time each arrow had landed a second was already in flight. The sky was thick with shafts pouring into the French lines. They responded with a cavalry charge followed by an advance of the first line of men-at-arms. Few of the French knights reached the English archers and those who did were impaled upon defensive stakes that had been set up. The retreating French cavalry broke the orderly advance of their own men-at-arms. These continued their unsupported advance, and though they lost many of their number to the heavy barrage of arrows, they managed to reach the English line. As the French were being beaten back by the English men-at-arms the archers exchanged their bows for swords and axes and fell upon the French flank; the first French line was almost entirely killed or taken prisoner. Most of the second line, seeing what happened to the first, retreated; those who did not were destroyed.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Agincourt, Battle of}}
[[Category:Battles]]
[[Category:French History]]
[[Category:English History]]

Philosophy

2008-08-16T20:04:23Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Modern era */

[[Image:Aristotle.gif|thumb|Aristotle]]
'''Philosophy''' (literally 'love of wisdom', from the Ancient Greek word φιλοσοφία (philosophía), which comes from φίλος (phílos) and σοφία (sophía), meaning friend/lover and wisdom respectively) is an academic discipline concerned with the most fundamental and general concepts and principles involved in thought, action, and reality. Philosophy progresses according to various methods of rational inquiry.

Philosophy is accurately described as both the first science and the "Queen of the Sciences". Until the late 19th century, what is now called "science" was subsumed under ''Natural Philosophy''.

Philosophy in the West has its origins in Ancient Greece, ca. 600 B.C. After the fall of the Roman Empire, much of Greek philosophy was lost to the West, preserved only in the Arab world until the time of the Crusades and the Moorish conquest of Spain. Contact with Arab philosophers (especially [[al-Ghazali]], who developed a version of the [[Cosmological argument]] and wrote more than 70 books, [[ibn Rushd]], and [[ibn Sina]]) kick-started the largely dormant philosophical tradition in Europe, beginning the "Academic period", which ended with [[Descartes]] and the beginning of the [[Enlightenment]]. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw a major split between [[Analytic philosophy]] (or Anglophone philosophy) and [[Continental philosophy]]. This divide can be traced back to the late 19th century and a split in focus between [[Gottlob Frege]] and the intellectual descendants of [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Friedrich Hegel]].

The main branches of philosophy are [[Metaphysics]], which is (broadly speaking) the study of what-is; [[Ethics]], the study of correct action; [[Logic]], the rules (both formal and informal) of reason; [[Epistemology]], the study of knowledge, and [[Aesthetics]], the study of the nature of beauty and the artistic criteria of judgment. Notable sub-branches include [[Philosophy of Science]], [[Philosophy of language]], [[Philosophy of Religion]], [[Political Philosophy]], and [[Philosophy of mind]].

== Branches of Analytic Philosophy ==

Broadly speaking, there are a number of topics one would expect to fall under the title '''Philosophy''':

*'''[[Logic]]''': The analysis of terms, propositions and the principles of reasoning
*'''[[Metaphysics]]''': The analysis of concepts which transcend physical science, including the [[Philosophy of mind]].
*'''[[Epistemology]]''': The analysis of the nature of knowledge, how we know, and what we can and cannot know.
*'''[[Ethics]]''': The analysis of the nature of [[morality]] and morals, how and why we determine right from wrong.
*'''[[Political Philosophy]]''': The analysis of the nature of the human public sphere, which one may consider the ethics of the way society is arranged.
*'''[[Philosophy of Science]]''': The analysis of scientific concepts and methodology, which concerns itself mostly with the foundations of [[science]], and interdisciplinary areas.
*'''[[Aesthetics]]''': The analysis of the nature and experience of [[art]] and beauty.

== History of Philosophy ==

Conventionally the History of Western Philosophy is divided into four eras: Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Contemporary.

The Ancient era starts with the [[Presocratic Philosophy|Presocratic]] philosophers and goes until the fall of the Roman empire; The Medieval goes until the end of the [[Middle Ages]]; The Modern up to the 20th century, and The Contemporary up to present.

[[Frederick Copleston]], S.J. (April 10, 1907 - February 3, 1994) was a [[Jesuit]] scholar who wrote the highly respected 9 volume History of Philosophy.

=== Greek Philosophy ===
[[Image:Parmenides book.jpg|240px|right]]
Philosophy in the West begins with [[Thales]] of Miletus, who was the first astronomer in recorded history to accurately predict a solar eclipse. The Milesian School founded by Thales included [[Anaxagoras]], [[Anaximander]], and [[Anaximenes]]. It was [[Pythagoras]] (ca. 582 - 504 BC) who first brought Philosophy into connection with practical life; he also gave Philosophy its name "the love of wisdom". Closely related to Milesianis is the work of [[Heraclitus]] of Ephesus. Around the time of Heraclitus, [[Parmenides]] of Elea, with his pupil [[Zeno]], raised some serious objections to the project of [[Milesian philosophy]]. These objections laid the groundwork for [[Socrates]] and his pupil [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]], as well as the Atomists, [[Democritus]] and [[Leucippus]]. After the Greek philosophical golden age other systems appeared, like [[Cynicism]], [[Stoicism]], [[Epicureanism]] and [[Skepticism]]. At the closing period of Greek philosophy [[Neoplatonism]] was founded by [[Plotinus|Plotinus of Lycopolis]]. Parmenides' thoughts influenced Plato and through him, all western philosophy. ''While Plato's dialogues are among the supreme philosophical works of the western tradition, it was Parmenides who established the implicit framework of their debates.'' <ref>[http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9972 Parmenides] by Raymond Tallis</ref>

[[Saint Augustine]] (354-430 A.D.), carrying some traces of Plato, has been of momentous importance in the development of Christian thought.

It was Plato, who made ''idea'' a technical term in philosophy, suggesting a world of abstract ideas [[idealism]]; Aristotle on the contrary, shows the real that dwells in the objects of sense; he thought that the natural world needed to be studied and observed for knowledge to be gained. His theory of act and potentiality, of form and ''matter'', is a new solution of the relations between the permanent and the changing; following the first attempts of the [[Presocratic Philosophy]] that conducted to [[Materialism]], ''Aristotle reproaches the Ionian philosophers in general with attempting to explain the evolution of the world without the Nous (intelligence); he regarded [[Protagoras]], who first introduced a spiritual principle, as a sober man among the inebriated.''
<ref> [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12025c.htm Philosophy] Catholic Encyclopedia. </ref>

Since that age up to present days, ''idealism '' and ''materialism'' have been the two main tendencies in the field of philosophy.

=== Medieval era ===
In the West, until the twelfth century, little was known of Plato and Aristotle, except a few dialogues and some treatises on logic. [[Anselm of Canterbury|St. Anselm]] (1O33-1109) made a first attempt at systematizing [[Scholasticism|Scholastic philosophy]]. Some decades later, the Arabic and Byzantine thinkers entered into relation with Western culture, and affecting a philosophical revival; Al-Ghazali, founder of the Ash'ari school of [[Atomism]], entered [[Europe]] through [[ibn Rushd]]; translations of the ancient authors were made and the philosophical works of [[ibn Sina]] and ibn Rushd became better known. In the thirteenth century important names appeared like: [[Maimonides]], Alexander of Hales (ca. 1185 - 1245), St. Bonaventure, [[Albertus Magnus]], [[Roger Bacon]], [[St. Thomas Aquinas]], and in the following century: William of Occam, Eckhart and [[Nicholas of Cusa]], and later, [[Thomas More]] and Grotius. (cf: [[Ibidem]] Catholic Encyclopedia.)

Classifications of Philosophy in this period are mostly akin to the Platonic division into [[logic]], [[ethics]], and [[physics]].

=== Modern era ===
[[Image:JohnStuartMill.jpg|thumb|[[John Stuart Mill]]]]
The main figures from this era are: [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Rene Descartes ]], [[Gottfried Leibniz]], [[David Hume]], [[Immanuel Kant]], [[Arthur Schopenhauer]], [[Auguste Comte]], [[John Stuart Mill]], [[Herbert Spencer]] [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Nietzsche]].

Dividing Philosophy Kant, distinguishes [[metaphysics]], [[moral]] philosophy, [[religion]], and [[anthropology]].

The most widely accepted scheme, that which still governs the division of the branches of philosophy is due to [[Christian Wolff]] (1679-1755):

This scheme is as follows:

1. Logic.
2. Speculative Philosophy.
* Ontology, or General Metaphysics.
* Special Metaphysics.
: o Theodicy (the study of God).
: o Cosmology (the study of the World).
: o Psychology (the study of Man).

3. Practical Philosophy.
* Ethics
* Politics
* Economics

(cf: [[Ibidem]])

:::::: ''All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions:''

:::::::::''1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope?'' Immanuel Kant.

=== The Twentieth Century ===

This century has offered a wide diversity of orientations. The best known are the French school of [[Existentialism]], the German study of [[Phenomenology]], the [[Positivism|Positivists]] of the Vienna Circle, and the post-Positivist Analytic movement.

==== Existentialists ====

The earliest existentialist was the Christian philosopher [[Søren Kierkegaard]]. [[Henri Bergsson]] (1859 – 1941), 1927 Nobel Prize in Literature, and [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] (1905 – 1980), philosopher, playwright, and novelist, that was the leading exponent of [[existentialism]], are probably the best-known examples of this School. [[Karl Jaspers]] also in Germany.

==== Phenomenology and Hermeneutics ====

[[Edmund Husserl]] (1859 – 1938) founder of [[phenomenology]], [[Martin Heidegger]] (1889 – 1976), and [[Hans-Georg Gadamer]] (1900-2002) are the core writers here.

==== Logical Positivists ====

The [[Vienna Circle]] philosophers, most notably [[Moritz Schlick]], [[Rudolf Carnap]], [[Herbert Feigl]], [[Kurt Godel]], and [[Otto Neurath]] established a rigorous tradition called "Logical Empiricism", but usually referred to as logical positivism. This tradition, a stricter development of [[Auguste Comte]]'s positivism, is no longer an active research program, unlike [[Existentialism]] and [[Phenomenology]].

==== Structuralism ====

[[Structuralism]] is a theory that uses culturally interconnected signs to reconstruct systems of relationships rather than studying isolated, material things in themselves, with members such as [[Ferdinand de Saussure]] (1857 – 1913), Swiss linguist, Roman Jakobson (1896 – 1982), Russian-American linguist and literary critic, Anthropologist [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] (1908 – ), French anthropologist, [[Roland Barthes]] (1915 – 1880), French critic, and Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984), French philosopher and historian. Foucault is renowned for historical studies that reveal the sometimes morally disturbing power relations inherent in social practices. <ref> [http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/structuralism Structuralism] </ref>

==== Others ====

The Frankfurt School , a group of researchers associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in 1923 as an autonomous division of the University of Frankfurt; a group of researchers associated with the Institut für Sozialforschung (Institute of Social Research), founded in 1923, with members such as [[Theodor Adorno]], Theodor Wiesengrund , Walter Benjamin (1892 – 1940), a German essayist and critic (He is known for his synthesis of eccentric Marxist theory and Jewish messianism) and [[Herbert Marcuse]] (1898 – 1979), U.S.;<ref> [http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Philosophhy Philosophy] </ref> Also, criticism of [[Positivism]] by German [[Jürgen Habermas]] (1929– ), a professor at the University of Frankfurt with the [[Critical Theory]].

Some other important names are: George Edward Moore (1873 – 1958), English philosopher, [[Bertrand Russell]] (1872 – 1970), [[British]] philosopher, [[mathematician]], and social reformer, and [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] (1889 – 1951), Austrian philosopher.

=== American Philosophy ===

Some scholars have said that American philosophers’ focus on the interconnections of theory and practice, on experience and community, but different concerns and themes have waxed or waned at different times. Through the middle of the 20th century, at least, American philosophers were actively engaged in shaping and reflecting the development of American culture.<ref>[http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/american.htm American Philosophy]</ref>

==== Transcendentalism ====
Founded by [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]] (1803 - 1882) who became the most widely known man of letters in America in the 19th century. [[Transcendentalism]], ''of which Emerson was the leading figure, resembled British [[Romanticism]] in its precept that a fundamental continuity exists between man, nature, and God, or the divine... Matter and spirit are not opposed.'' <ref> [http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/emerson.htm Ralph Waldo Emerson] </ref>
==== Pragmatism ====
Main figures are: [[Charles Peirce]] (1839-1914), [[William James]] (1842-1910), [[John Dewey]] (1859-1952), and [[Richard Rorty]] (1931-2007).

==== Philosophy of Religion ====

The best-known American philosopher of religion is without a doubt [[Alvin Plantinga]] (1932- ) at the [[University of Notre Dame]]; also well-known are [[John Hick]] (1922- ), who, though born in England, did much of his work at [[Claremont University]] in southern California, and professor [[William Alston]] (1921- ) working at [[Syracuse University]].

==== Analytic Philosophers ====
[[Image:John Rawls.jpg|thumb|Harvard philosopher John Rawls.]]
America has produced a great many philosophers in the Analytic tradition. A brief list of notables:

* [[W.V.O. Quine]]
* [[Saul Kripke]]
* [[Kit Fine]]
* [[Ted Sider]]
* [[Robert Stalnaker]]
* [[Daniel Dennett]]
* [[John Searle]]
* [[Richard Montague]]
* [[Paul Grice]]

Especially well-known to non-philosophers is [[John Rawls]] (1921 - 2002) (political and moral philosophy) author of ''A Theory of Justice'' (1971), ''Political Liberalism'' (1993), ''The Law of Peoples'' (1999), and ''Justice as Fairness: A Restatement'' (2001).

== Eastern Philosophy ==

[[Eastern Philosophy]] comprises mainly the thought of: [[Zoroastrianism]], [[Buddhism]], [[Hinduism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Taoism]], [[Islamism]] and [[Jainism]]. Some scholars include Babylonian philosophy and Korean philosophy.

== See also ==

*[[Greek Philosophy]]
*[[Greek philosophers]]
*[[Agnosticism]]
*[[Empiricism]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.friesian.com/history.htm History of Philosophy]
*[http://www.erraticimpact.com/history_index.htm History of Philosophy - Resources]
*[http://www.questia.com/read/100673611 A History of American Philosophy] Book by Herbert W. Schneider.
*[http://www.molloy.edu/sophia/sophia_texts.htm Edited versions of important texts in philosophy.]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Philosophical systems]]

John Stuart Mill

2008-08-16T18:55:30Z

JohnyGoodman:

[[Image:JohnStuartMill.jpg|right|thumb|John Stuart Mill]]
'''John Stuart Mill''' (London, 1806 - Aviñón, France, 1873) [[philosopher]], political [[writer]], [[economist]]; he was the last of the [[English]] classical economists.

[[Homeschool]]ed by his father with the assistance of [[Jeremy Bentham]] and Francis Place (Following the principles of the [[Jean Jacques Rousseau|Rousseau]]'s ''Emilio''). Mill supported [[laissez-faire]] but with social reforms like redistribution of wealth, shorter working days, and regulation of [[monopoly|monopolies]]. Today he would be called a "moderate [[conservative]]" due to his support of some [[government]] controls over the [[economy]]. Mill was ahead of his time in advocating the development of [[labor union]]s and farm [[cooperative]]s, and [[emancipation]] (voting) by women. He sympathized with the North in the [[American Civil War]]. He was also an [[atheist]].

In his book "On Liberty," Mill advocated that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." He advocated freedom of speech, and generally freedom of action too. Mill also advocated [[utilitarianism]], a concept previously proposed by the atheist Jeremy Bentham.

In 1851, John Stuart Mill married Harriet Taylor. She was a significant influence on Mill's work and reinforced his advocacy of women's rights.

==Quotes==

*He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/onesided.html]
*"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

== See also ==

*[[Enterprise]]
*[[Capital]]
*[[Ludwig von Mises]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Mill, John Stuart}}
[[Category:Economists]]
[[Category:Political Scientists]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-16T18:48:40Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Reversion of edits */

Talk:Leif Erikson

2008-08-16T18:44:10Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Why isn't this article being reverted? */ new section

I am not certain if you grasped the nuance of Jeff Bolster's argument. Archaeological evidence for a Viking presence in North America, circa 1000 AD does exist, in Newfoundland. However, there is no evidence for a Viking presence in New England, Minnesota, and Kansas. Part of the suspicion regrading claims of a pre-Columbian European presence goes back to the nineteenth century, when Scandinavian-American societies, citing Norse myth, claimed that Leif Erikson landed in North American centuries before Cristobal Colon (his proper name). Some individuals went so far as to plant archaeological forgeries in Minnesota and Kansas, that have come to be known as rune stones. They are large rocks with inscriptions made on them by metal tools. Close examination revealed them as modern fakes (the nineteenth century, BTW, saw many archaeological frauds. A number of "artifacts" of supposedly Etruscan origin surfaced in western Michigan in the 1890s).
So, while scholars like Julius E. Olson and Edward Gaylord Bourne did not accept that the Norse had landed in North America, they still included excerpts from the Vinland saga in their edited volume ''The Northmen, Columbus, and Cabot, 985-1503'' (Scribner's, 1906).
However, the controversy about a Norse presence was finally laid to rest in 1960, when artifacts of Scanadiavian orign, dating to about 1000 AD were discovered in Newfoundland.[http://www.mnh.si.edu/vikings/1137.html]
[http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/index_e.asp]
[http://www.cdli.ca/CITE/v_lanse.htm]
[http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/vinland.html]
[http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/4]--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 10:36, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

: I looked at your initial cites and found nothing persuasive. One or two tiny artifacts can be easily forged or misunderstood, and are not evidence for an actual settlement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:40, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I find it unpersuasive that Aschlafly actually read the cites I provided in four minutes. Perhaps, as Dr. Lenski noted, reading is not your strongest suit?--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 10:44, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Yeah, insult Andy with a non sequitur. That's the way to win him over. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:47, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Non sequiter? What he said is essentially along the same lines as "I found your performance of the task I gave you lacking. Maybe it's like Susan said - you can't be trusted to do chores correctly?" It's not non sequiter at all. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 15:49, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:"Cristobal Colon (his proper name)" An Italian whose "proper name" is Spanish? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 10:41, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I care about history and the truth. Andy said he did not find the cites persuasive, without even looking at them. Perhaps Dr. Lenski had a point?--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 10:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

::::You say you care about history and the truth, but provide a Spanish name for an Italian and claim it's his "proper name." How does that jive? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::Sorry, I was thinking of the original agreement between Columbus and the Spanish Crown, which referred to him a Cristobal Colon. However, it still stands that the assertion that the Norse did not reach North America is obviously incorrect. --[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 13:30, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:Mr Schlafly, it is not correct that there were only found "one or two tiny artifacts". Actually, the excavations have unearthed eight buildings, including three Norse-style longhouses for habitation, and several hundred different artifacts. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:34, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
::Archaeologists are notorious for only seeing what they want to see, a fault shared with many of our [[Liberal]] friends here. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:05, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Im a Norweigan myself, and Id love to think that we discovered america, but when the facts speak against it I have nothing to do but concede. It doesnt have to be harder than reading the sources provided. Even in norway people are starting to realize "we" didnt do it. Im going to try and find some more good sources to confirm that.
[[User:PerWilly|PerWilly]] 19:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

The evidence rests primarily on two tiny artifacts identified by the much younger wife of a prominent archaeologist from Norway. Nothing larger of significance was found, aside from speculation that arose beginning with those artifacts.

Sadly, the planting of small artifacts is a fact of life and has been proven in other circumstances. There is powerful evidence against any such settlement, and no documentary support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

: Indeed, the more one looks at the details, the more it appears to be an archaeological wannabee trying to acquire the fame and respect of her older husband.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:: It's a pity there's no proof of their deception, eh? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:09, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:::I'd just like to know how eight buildings and hundreds of artifacts can suddenly turn into "two tiny artifacts". Maybe [[deceit]]ful [[liberal]] [[Professor values|professors]] stole the rest? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

:::: Why are there no artifacts bigger than what can be easily carried in one hand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::Because they took the big and valuable items with them when they left again? --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 20:33, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Or because it's the small things that tend to get lost in everyday life - and then re-emerge centuries later in archaeological digs. Or things like pins break with repeated usage, needles snap, pots chip or break... that's the flotsam and jetsam of history. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:13, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::::: I must say, what I find most interesting about the proposition that the site was built and seeded by the Ingstads (and the international team of archaeologists that accompanied them) was the fact that Parks Canada either willingly or unwittingly colluded in the matter when they performed [url=http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/meadows/natcul/fouilles_excavate_e.asp]their own excavations[/url]. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:51, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

==Recent edit==
"One of those artifacts was used by Norse women in their chores, but there is no explanation for how or why Norse women would have gone to Newfoundland."

The vikings, including, women used boats to travel, and women were essential to the creation of settlements. Unless an objection is raised, I'll be removing that sentence. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:20, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I'm somewhat skeptic about this "used by women" interpretation. What would prevent Vikin men from using the same tools if necessary? It seems likely that there are some preconceived notions about gender roles at work here. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 09:00, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::Because they're <big>Vikings</big>? You modern-day Scandinavians might have gone soft but back then.... More seriously in the past gender-roles where more fixed. It might not be proved that women used them in this instance, but it seems a reasonable assumption. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:30, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

:::I don't know. The question of gender roles is quite complex, and very culture-dependent. In many cases, what we might consider 'traditional' gender roles date only a couple of centuries back at most, and projecting those backwards on past societies is problematic. In any case, common sense would suggest that clothes would need mending whether or not there were any women around to take care of it. --[[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:08, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Fair enough, you're the historian. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 12:23, 7 August 2008 (EDT)

== Why isn't this article being reverted? ==

Does anybody else find it strange that once it was pointed out that Leif Ericson was a christian Schlafy sort of gave up on his claims that there was no real evidence for the settlement? What happened to Schlafy's claims that there was only a tiny amount of evidence and what little there was could be explained by other means?

Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?

2008-08-15T22:46:08Z

JohnyGoodman: /* Reversion of edits */ new section

Creation science

2008-08-07T18:24:56Z

JohnyGoodman: Reverted AGAIN. To stop this turning into an edit war, please provide the reasoning behind reversions back to the July 4th article in the discussion area. So far no reasoning has been given.

'''Creation science''' is [[science]] free according to nearly the entire scientific community as it is proposes no testable hypotheses <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html</ref><ref>http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creation_model_is_unscientific.htm</ref><ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20060115091707/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html</ref><ref>http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf</ref>. Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is approximately 6,000 years]] old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the [[origin of life]] and that the [[Theory of evolution|theory of evolution]] cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref> Many scientists in the field of creation science, such as the scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[Answers in Genesis]], assert that the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed]]. In addition, [[Christianity]] profoundly influenced the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].

== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
:''Main article: [[Intelligent design]]''
[[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]
Scientists in the area of creation science and [[intelligent design]] advocates state the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118</ref>

Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex [[information]] processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html</ref>

Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:

#In his work ''In the Beginning Was Information'' Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094</ref>
#Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref> Similarly, Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] in his 1996 essay ''The [[Origin of life|Origin of Life]] and the Death of [[Materialism]]'', wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced [[computer chip]]s.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
#Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA [[molecule]], who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
#Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial ([[spirit]]).<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
[[Image:Waltbrown.gif‎|left|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Walt Brown]]]]
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs in regards to the [[supernatural]] origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref>

To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs, Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==
Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

Although a belief in God does not automatically imply a belief in creation science, it is interesting to note that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 40% of scientists believed there is a God,<ref> http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html</ref> while a similar survey found that 93% of members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
==External Links==
*[http://www.creationscience.com/ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] the website of Dr. [[Walt Brown]]
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]
*[http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ Creation Science]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/ Creation On the Web] The website of [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]

==Notes and References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]

Creation science

2008-08-07T18:00:27Z

JohnyGoodman: reverted again because it is true, sourced, and the first reversion provided no reason and rewrote the article so it included no sources for major claims such as creationism being backed by evidence.

Leif Erikson

2008-08-04T17:47:31Z

JohnyGoodman:

[[Image:Lief Ericson.jpg|300px|right|thumb]]
'''Leif Erikson''' (or Leifur Eiríksson) was born in [[Iceland]] in 970 and died in 1020. He was son of [[Eric the Red]] who lived on the West Coast of Greenland and was an outlaw from [[Norway]]. Leif's friend, Lars Almvig, told a saga of a land far to the west that had been seen through a mist by a Viking band led by Bjarni Herjulfsson in 986 that had been blown off course. Encouraged by the constant need of land to farm, Leif organized a voyage and bought Bjarni's ship and headed west in about A.D. 990. He followed Bjarni's route in reverse, making three landfalls after about 4 1/2 days.

The first of these he named Helluland or Flat-Stone Land which is now Labrador.

There is very little evidence that he established a Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland. Before 1960 the suggestion had no credibility, and then several small Norse artifacts were supposedly found in Newfoundland without independent verification. One of those artifacts was used by Norse women in their chores, but there is no explanation for how or why Norse women would have gone to Newfoundland.

According to some sources, Erikson was a [[Christian]] convert, and spread his new religion to his colonies.

Leif returned to Greenland in 1001. Leif never returned and attempts at settlement of Vinland were unsuccessful due to the native North Americans.

(Excerpted for "Norwegian Explorers on the ODIN website, produced for the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.)
Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1995 ed. "Leif Ericson."

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Erikson, Leif}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

Leif Erikson

2008-08-04T17:46:15Z

JohnyGoodman: sources did not correspond to the paragraph (e.g source 1"undeniable proof of Vikings in North America"source 2. "ca. 1000 A.D. Norse Settlement "not enough space to say 3, 4 and 5 but it's explicit.

[[Image:Lief Ericson.jpg|300px|right|thumb]]
'''Leif Erikson''' (or Leifur Eiríksson) was born in [[Iceland]] in 970 and died in 1020. He was son of [[Eric the Red]] who lived on the West Coast of Greenland and was an outlaw from [[Norway]]. Leif's friend, Lars Almvig, told a saga of a land far to the west that had been seen through a mist by a Viking band led by Bjarni Herjulfsson in 986 that had been blown off course. Encouraged by the constant need of land to farm, Leif organized a voyage and bought Bjarni's ship and headed west in about A.D. 990. He followed Bjarni's route in reverse, making three landfalls after about 4 1/2 days.

The first of these he named Helluland or Flat-Stone Land which is now Labrador.

There is strong evidence that he established a Norse settlement at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland. From the late nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century, there was a controversy about whether or not the Norse reached North American before Columbus. The issue was finally laid to rest in 1960, when artifacts of Scandinavian origin, dating to about 1000 AD were discovered in Newfoundland.

According to some sources, Erikson was a [[Christian]] convert, and spread his new religion to his colonies.

Leif returned to Greenland in 1001. Leif never returned and attempts at settlement of Vinland were unsuccessful due to the native North Americans.

(Excerpted for "Norwegian Explorers on the ODIN website, produced for the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.)
Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia, 1995 ed. "Leif Ericson."

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Erikson, Leif}}
{{Nb_explorers}}

Creation science

2008-08-04T00:13:28Z

JohnyGoodman:

Creation science

2008-08-04T00:13:12Z

JohnyGoodman:

'''Creation science''' is [[science]] free according to nearlythe entire scientific community as it is proposes no testable hypotheses <ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html</ref><ref>http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/creation_model_is_unscientific.htm</ref><ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20060115091707/http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/2005/intelligent.html</ref><ref>http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf</ref>. Most advocates of creation science believe the [[young earth creationism|earth is approximately 6,000 years]] old. In addition, scientists in the discipline of creation science state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe. They also claim that these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> Creation scientists also assert that naturalistic processes alone cannot account for the [[origin of life]] and that the [[Theory of evolution|theory of evolution]] cannot account for the various kinds of animals and plants. Both evolutionary scientists and [[Young earth creationism|young earth creation]] scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs; however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref> Many scientists in the field of creation science, such as the scientists at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[Answers in Genesis]], assert that the [[Bible scientific foreknowledge|Bible contains an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed]]. In addition, [[Christianity]] profoundly influenced the [[Christianity and Science|development of modern science]].

== Creation Science and Genetic Programs and Biological Information ==
:''Main article: [[Intelligent design]]''
[[Image:Foto Gitt.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Werner Gitt]]]]
Scientists in the area of creation science and [[intelligent design]] advocates state the [[genetic code]], genetic programs, and biological [[information]] argue for an intelligent cause in regards to the origins question.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/infotheory.asp</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=118</ref>

Dr. Werner Gitt, former director and Professor of Information Systems at the prestigious German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt), wrote that human beings are the most complex [[information]] processing systems on earth. Dr. Gitt estimated that the human body processes thousands of times more information than all the world's libraries contain.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html</ref>

Dr. Gitt has written several points regarding the origin of biological information:

#In his work ''In the Beginning Was Information'' Dr. Gitt stated that “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1484094</ref>
#Dr. Gitt argued that the [[density]] and complexity of [[DNA]] information is millions of times larger than mankind's current technology and this means a supremely intelligent being was the author of this information.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref> Similarly, Dr. [[Stephen C. Meyer]] in his 1996 essay ''The [[Origin of life|Origin of Life]] and the Death of [[Materialism]]'', wrote that "the information storage density of DNA, thanks in part to nucleosome spooling, is several trillion times that of our most advanced [[computer chip]]s.<ref>http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_origins.htm</ref>
#Gitt stated that the author of the information encoded into the DNA [[molecule]], who constructed the molecular biomachines to encode, decode and run the cells was supremely intelligent.<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
#Dr. Gitt asserted that because information is a nonmaterial entity and does not originate from matter, the author of biological information must be nonmaterial ([[spirit]]).<ref>http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn58/tinycode_dna.htm</ref>
[[Image:Waltbrown.gif‎|left|thumb|200px|Dr. [[Walt Brown]]]]
Dr. [[Walt Brown]] concurs in regards to the [[supernatural]] origin of biological information and states that the genetic material that controls the biological processes of life is coded information and that human experience tells us that [[codes]] are created only by the result of intelligence and not merely by processes of nature.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref> Dr. Brown also asserts that the "information stored in the genetic material of all life is a complex program. Therefore, it appears that an unfathomable intelligence created these genetic programs."<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences18.html</ref>

To support his creation science view regarding the divine origin of genetic programs, Dr. Walt Brown cites the work of David Abel and Professor Jack Trevors who wrote the following:
{{cquote|No matter how many "bits" of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it "information" if it doesn't at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a "program." Another name for computer software is an "algorithm." No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed? - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information,” Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes17.html#wp1467742</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1208958</ref>}}

==Creation Science and the Evolutionary Science Community==
Creation science is not accepted by most scientists either in terms of its claims or as a science, on the pretext that it cannot be disproved and therefore cannot be considered "[[science]]".<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/19991013122341/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolutionviews990816.html</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> However, Dr. [[Walt Brown]] argues that the field of creation science is scientific.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html#wp2727001</ref> Also, creation scientists state the evolutionists' objections to creation science are due to the worldviews and preconceptions of the scientists, rather than on the basis of scientific evidence or the scientific validity of the idea.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp</ref>
Also, [[Karl Popper]], a leading philosopher of science and originator of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience,<ref>
* http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/
* http://www.discovery.org/a/3524</ref> stated that Darwinism is "not a testable scientific theory, but a [[Metaphysics|metaphysical]] research programme."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref> Michael Ruse, a leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, conditionally acknowledged Popper's statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref>

Although a belief in God does not automatically imply a belief in creation science, it is interesting to note that a poll among United States scientists showed that approximately 40% of scientists believed there is a God,<ref> http://www.ovpr.uga.edu/researchnews/97su/faith.html</ref> while a similar survey found that 93% of members of the [[United States National Academy of Sciences]] do not believe there is a God.<ref> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
==External Links==
*[http://www.creationscience.com/ In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood] the website of Dr. [[Walt Brown]]
*[http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal]
*[http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/ Creation Science]
*[http://creationontheweb.com/ Creation On the Web] The website of [[Creation Ministries International]]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.icr.org/ Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/ NorthWest Creation Network]

==Notes and References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Science]]

Materialism

2008-07-29T12:35:18Z

JohnyGoodman: Whether John McCain is elligible for the Presidency because of his birthplace is a legal matter, not a philisophically materialist matter. Non-materialists have made similar claims about Barack Obama.

'''Materialism''' is a [[philosophy]] within the realm of [[metaphysics]] that holds that the only thing that can be proven beyond doubt to exist is matter. Materialism holds that all phenomena and processes can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism Merriam Webster Dictionary: Materialism]</ref>

In politics, materialism overlooks abstract principles and instead focuses on tangible or directly observable characteristics, {{fact}} such as:

* race
* gender
* wealth

In the [[United States]], [[Democrats]] tend to be materalistic, with particularly heavy emphasis placed on race and gender.{{fact}} [[Republicans]], in contrast, tend to focus on principles such as [[pro-life]] or [[economics]].{{fact}}

Materialism ignores unseen [[opportunity costs]], and often materialists fail to grasp the concept and its importance. {{fact}}

[[Gun control]] is an issue that separates materialistic approaches from conceptual ones. The materialistic duality is to remove guns ostensibly to reduce violence from guns or allow guns to allow individuals to defend themselves. The conceptual approach is to evaluate the unseen deterrent benefits of guns, and to compare this value to the harm of improper use.

Materialism is taught heavily in [[public schools]], leading students to undervalue [[unseen]] aspects of life. {{fact}} There is a high correlation between materialism and [[atheism]] as atheism is fundamentally a materialistic philosophy. Materialism denies that most great intellectual breakthroughs were the result of [[faith]] in the [[unseen]]. {{fact}}

Materialism misleads people into thinking that non-material-based addictions (e.g., gambling and pornography) are not harmful to one's health. {{fact}} They are often very harmful despite a lack of immediate physical harm.

Arguments for materialism commonly misuse {{fact}} principles such as [[Occam's Razor]] and propose that an immaterial realm is wholly superfluous to materialists' understanding of the world.

"Materialism" can also refer to an obsession with material goods.

The teachings of [[Karl Marx]] and [[Vladimir Lenin]] (see [[Marxism-Leninism]]) rest upon a philosophy of history called [[dialectical materialism]].

==Quotes==

*"[T]he greatest failure of materialism is that it simply cannot explain the existence of [[information]]!" [http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm]

== See also ==

* [[Philosophy]]
* [[Unseen]]

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category: Philosophy]]