Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?

2007-03-24T04:01:17Z

Kirby:

Its just a thought I had. At their core element, political parties are economic. You have the right, which favors the rich, and the left, which favors the poor. One strives to keep things the same, the other tries to change the system so it is more equal. So why does the right seem to embrace religion more?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 09:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that. Politicians, by definition have no qualms about anything, do not hold any principles really - whatever will get them elected and allow them to keep their power. Religion has worked for the right (often) and economic disparity has worked to the left (class warfare). The Rev Ted Haggard is but the most recent example of the hypocrisy of the "right" and on the "left" Nancy Pelosi's efforts at exempting the American Samoa from the minimum wage hike (lobbying by companies headquartered in San Francisco). In a very broad sense, Milton Friedman was right (and as believed by President Reagan) - the best way to protect our freedoms is to keep the pie that the politician rascals control as small as possible and give them as little power as possibly we can. The "left" and the "right" loves Governmental control when it suits their purpose - the left for economic reasons (mostly), the right for social/religious/related agendas that they can enforce. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 12:10 PM, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

::If politicians have no principles, as you seem to be suggesting, then why run for political office in the first place? In other words, if you don't have an agenda that you wish to advance, why run for office? Power in and of itself is useless unless you turn it to advancing your own beliefs. "Government Control" only gets us halfway. Control over what? I suppose the recognition and money are nice, but there are a lot better ways than running for political office to make money. Politicians only seem unprincipled because they are often forced to compromise with the other side to advance their beliefs at all. --[[User:Rustybutterknife|Rustybutterknife]] 18:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A rush, a high, the desire to grab power (OK, perhaps there IS a principle, "grab power") - When I hear about "Public service to give back" - I puke. Many who are in office have, I am guessing, no other better way to make money than wheel/deal - trade/back stab/whatever ... True, that many may try to do what they want to do, but such do not survive - leaving us with the scoundrels. I am watching the story of Congressman Jeff Flake of Arizona, who is STILL fighting a losing battle on the issue of pork/ear marks - he was on 60 minutes a while ago. I do sound like such a cynic. [[User:kchittur|kchittur]] 23:45 (CDT) 21 March 2007

:I dont believe that the right does embrace religion more. The Left is full of religion. For example, environmentalism taken to its extreme is a religion. [[User: kara]]

:I'm talking about religion in the classical sense of modern Abrahamic religions. Let me rephrase. In any society, when you have a SMD|Plurality voting system like the US, 2 political parties emerge. One party favors the business sector or the rich. The other party favors the working class or the poor. This will always happen under these circumstances. So why is it that in America, the right have taken up God as a member of their party?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 10:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

I would not say that the right has taken up God more than the left. What about Jesse Jackson?There are plenty of preachers on the left. To say that the left favors the poor and that the right favors the rich is not accurate. Things are not that clear cut. For example, some would say that the Roman Catholic church is far right. However, the Church has taken a clear pro-illegal immigrant stand in the United States. Most people (that would include politicians) are right on some issues and left on others. [[User: kara]]

Perhaps it is only that what is "right" and what is "left" is all a matter of perspective? Religion certainly plays a role in shaping perspective, though that does not mean that it is the only thing. I for one, do not consider myself a conservative, but I do consider myself religiously a Christian. I think the reason people think the "right" is more religious is because more people on the right voice their religion as justification, and claim unity among their religion to back their claim. I think the good example of this is the Creation Theology branch that I've seen on this site and elsewhere. It's pretty much a "Christians believe this, or else they are not real Christian" kind of claim. Then it's a simple matter of taking a poll and asking people if they consider themselves Christians or not. If they say "yes," then it appears they believe what you do. You can follow the same pattern with any religion, or even with any group or folk. "I am a republican, I believe abortion is wrong. All republicans believe this, therefore if anyone else is a republican, they also believe this. If they do not, they are not a real republican." 'Tis all a matter of opinion. -- [[user:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 21 March 2007

Leftist Christians don't bring their religion into it as much as conservatives. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 00:01, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-03-24T03:57:55Z

Kirby:

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.{{fact}}

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?

2007-03-24T03:35:04Z

Kirby:

Definitely; we're the only world power, after all; it's our job to go in and stop communism there. If we don't, it'll only come here! [[User:CraigK|CraigK]] 22:37, 7 March 2007 (EST)

How can the US claim to be in favour of democracy if they intervene if they try to overthrow democratically elected communist governments?

Don't worry CraigK, you're lucky enough to live in a democracy - communists won't be winning any elections in the US in our lifetimes

We have a limited amount of political capital worldwide at this point in time, and right now, I think it's more prudent for us to concentrate on stopping terrorism and protecting Israel. This is unfortunate because of the trend toward liberalization of Latin America. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:25, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Just how many small countries are really communist anymore? Cuba and Vietnam seem the only candidates, and since the current regimes in both of those countries appear honestly popular an American intervention could become dangerous. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Communism isn't some sort of virus. It will not spread to us. We (as in the US) have no reason to defeat communism. It's an ideology, and when it fails, something else will come along. If someone came into your household and murdered your family, and then tell you to believe in communism, you just won't. Leave it alone, and it'll die out on it's own. --[[User:Cpryd001|Cpryd001]] 19:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This debate is highly reminiscent of 1967. Communism, obviously, is no longer expanding because it failed as a realistic ideology. That's that. US military intervention did not stop Communism; Communism was efficient enough at doing that.

If there's a movement or rebellion in a Communist country, ''if they ask us to help'' and if they haven't employed detestable practices like, say, suicide bombings, then, by all means, we should help. Not many groups meet those criteria, however... [[User:Navy Nuke|Navy Nuke]] 15:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes the U.S. so special that provides it the justification to impose its preferences on others? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 15:56, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Why do you want to defeat communism? Communism defeats itself. --[[User:Order|Order]]

Cough* VIETNAM Cough*

You guys... What is this all about? Perhaps we should have a debate about whether American citizens should be allowed outside of their own borders to impose their will upon others. I am not a communist, far from it, but I also don't feel the need to impose my idea of 'the truth' on anyone else. There are many peoples in the world that fear that America and its aggressive policies - are the American people proud of that? Well yes, many of them are. --[[User:Greenman|Greenman]]

Ah these are all ridiculous comments firstly none of you have any understanding of the structural theory behind communism, secondly you are all mini hitlers (except Greenman). Maybe you should just understand that many of the worlds nations are becoming more socialist than you realsie- many in South Ameica, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Angola, France, Scandenavia, a portion of Africa the list goes on. Perhaps, The USA should keep to itself since and not inflict its own idealogy on others- I always thought that you fought a war with Britain for doing it to you, but hey if you wanna be hippocrits then go ahead, by the way the bible, Koran and Torah all say hippocrisy is a sin. ----[[User:Karl Marx|Karl Marx]] 04:30, 22 March 2007 (EDT) Karl Marx

My answer to the question: no. Why? Communism is an ideology and ideas do nothing to others without action. If said ideology was to inspire wars and such, then intervention could be condoned. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:35, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-24T03:31:25Z

Kirby:

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''Teach Them Everything'''===
If we are to teach children about origins of all things and include Judeo-Christian Creationism as an alternative then we should have other beliefs as alternatives too. We can't teach every origin theory, myth, belief, etc. but we can teach a few. Perhaps a few that are culturally or geographically relevant. A combination of teaching evolution, creationism, Greco-Roman origin myths, and Native American myths would give a broader understanding than just evolution.

Even so, I go to high school and I find the teaching of evolution in biology and anthropology classes to be incorrect in many things. You think that if the government decides to teach something they would teach it correctly. The explanation of natural selection was atrocious. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.
You are stupid...they are taught as philosophy and history just like all religion should be, not as scientific fact.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.
::Wrong. Theories are not "only theories", and they are often correct. Try doing grade 9 math without the theory of Pythagoras. There is much more solid, physical evidence to support the Theory of Evololution than any other theory or belief.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I find your reference to school prayer interesting. Do you mean it should be allowed or required? And if so, why?[[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 01:44, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Counter-argument: Here's a shocking idea: maybe there isn't a giant secular conspiracy to deny God's existence and advance evolution without evidence. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution--why else would most scientists (the people most predisposed to think critically about scientific concepts) believe evolution to be a proven fact? I haven't yet seen a single good argument against evolution--and trust me, I've looked. Irreducible complexity is a myth, the 2nd Law arguments contain several fallacies (Answers in Genesis even advises witnesses not to use it in trying to refute evolution!), and really, the ID advocates haven't met the burden of proof. Even in one of the most Christian countries on Earth, people won't let you get away with just telling them "The Bible says so." Which is all you have that hasn't been debunked.

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

3. Creationism is essentially arguing that because the natural world can't be explained 100%, therefore an old man with a gray beard really high in the sky must have waved his magic wand are created the world a few days.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

I hate to break this to you, but just because a 5000 year old book says that God created the world, that doesn't make it true. Look at the ''evidence''! There is no evidence against God...but there is evidence against the Bible.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

: '''REPLY'''
You state that "scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment." With regards to 1, creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth and so can never be assumed false. But why should creationism be excluded because it doesn't suffer from the same attributes as Man's fallible beliefs? With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically. Science is supposed to be a search for truth, regardless of what that truth may be. As for 3, creationism IS based on observation and experiment, unlike Darwinism. According to Genesis, animals reproduce after their own kind, which is precisely what we see. What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans.

You go on to say that "a scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong." Well, creationism has not been proven wrong, so what's so bad about giving students access to alternative theories instead of simply trying to pretend that alternate theories don't exist?

If creationism is a logical fallacy because we KNOW that God's Word is infallible, then how on Earth can you possible say that Darwinism is scientific when Darwinists are required to ASSUME that God's Word is somehow false? Why the double standards? That doesn't sound very fair or scientific to me.

Creationism is a better theory than Darwinism, but we can't publish in so-called peer-reviewed science journals because the editors of said journals are all biased against Christianity. Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals. That's circular reasoning, just like when Darwinists date the age of fossils by "knowing" the date of the rocks, which are in turn dated by the fossils that they contain. This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts! --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

'''REPLY'''
It's hard to debate with people that don't follow logic when you argue based on logic. This isn't a putdown - it's a suggestion that to make this a worthwhile debate, you learn to recognize logical fallacies. I suggest reading http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ . I think it does a good job of going through the basics.

First, I should point out that we both come to this debate with a set of biases. I am a scientist and a skeptic. This has given me a bias to look at anything that isn't natural with skepticism; however, I do try to put myself in other people's shoes to see where they're coming from. I can see that you have a strong faith in your belief, and are unwilling to bend from it - in other words, you'll reject any evidence based on it. Fine - I don't imagine I'll change your mind, but perhaps I'll make you better at arguing your point.

Here are my problems with your argument:
1) "creationism isn't falsifiable because we know it's the Truth". Who does? And where is your proof? The premise of your argument is that the Bible is a literal history of the world, that it was written through someone by God, and that it is unfalsifiable. Your premise requires circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy. The conclusion, that the Bible is the Truth, requires that the premise, the Bible is the Truth is true. This is the same as me saying "I'm God.", then you countering with "How do you know?", and me saying "Because I said so." Ridiculous, isn't it? Furthermore, creationism is falsifiable; so is evolution. These are both conclusions of evidence we both have. It's the premise of creationism, that God wrote the Truth into the Bible, that is problematic. Even more problematic, and germane to this discussion, is that the God that did it is the Judeo/Christian/Islam God (yes, muslims pray to the same god as you do). So that's why it violates separation of Church and State.

Furthermore, there are several facts about creationism that make a firm believer as yourself have to make too many assumptions to make it true. This poses a problem for Occam's Razor, a valuable logical tool that states that and explantion of any phenomenon (a theory) should make as few assumptions as necessary. This ideal is engrained in science classes starting in grade school. Creationism makes many assumptions based on no evidence other than the Bible. And the Bible, by the way, is not one book. It's a compendium of books describing several thousand years of Hebrew history and culture, and then it skips a few thousand years and picks up with the life and times of a man called Jesus, and the goings-on of his followers soon after his death. It was compiled by people like you and me, and it's not an exhaustive list of the literature of the time, as any historian will tell you. Tell me how this compendium (arguably the greatest literature ever assembled) is any different than a compendium of Greek or Roman mythology, or even 12th-19th century English literature. Add the fact that there are multiple creation stories from cultures both extant and extinct (ask the Aztecs how they described creationism, or the Hindi, or Zoroastrians, which have an eerily similar story), and I have to ask - what makes your's so special?

2) "With regards to 2, if "scientists" arbitarily reject a whole class of theories a priori, can they really be thinking scientifically." Yes, because science ignores supernatural explanations by definition. Actually, the definition of science requires that it only deals with natural phenomenae. So currently that cuts god out of the picture, since it/he can't be tested or observed (there are other, easier explanations that don't require the assumption that god is supernatural to explain many things). For example, in the Gospels, there are stories about demons being excercised from people. I don't doubt that this was a common explanation of the time period for someone rolling on the ground and frothing at the mouth, since people of the time knew nothing about the brain - however, an MRI scan of one of these possessed people might show that they suffered from epilepsy. Now, I can't say for sure, since I wasn't there - but one explanation requires a supernatural explanation, and the other gives a natural explanation. We can see epilepsy on an MRI. We can't see demons. People used to believe that maggots spontaneously appeared on meat until Francesco Redi covered a jar containing rotten meat with cheese cloth and showed that the maggots hatched on top. That was in 1668 AD. Do you still believe maggots appear spontaneously on meat?

3) "What we DON'T see is cats giving birth to dogs, or apes giving birth to humans." All I have to say is read up on the theory of evolution (http://evolution.berkeley.edu). I don't know where you got this notion, but that is not, in any way shape or form, what the theory predicts. Evolution is not progressive. Apes will never evolve into humans. If the Gorillas in the Congo were to split up into two non-breeding populations, then you would see, in quite a few thousand years, possibly longer, that both populations would be distinct from the original. Depending on the change in environment and genetic drift, one population might be similar to the original, and the other might not. There's no way to know, but that doesn't invalidate the theory. Evolution can't make predictions any more than you can say when you'll die. But both are inevitable.

4) "Some anti-Christians even justify this by saying that science journals shouldn't publish pro-creationism articles because creationism isn't science. And they say that creationism isn't science because it's not published in journals." You're correct, that's circular reasoning. But no one says that creationism isn't science because it isn't published in peer-reviewed science journals. It isn't published because it doesn't meet the definition of science. I'm sorry - the only way out of that is to publish in a non-science journal, which you do, or change the definition of science (which Kansas tried to do). You have to understand that should god or any supernatural phenomenae (say, ghosts) be testable, they would instantly come within the pervue of science. Since no one can test a ghost (their occurance can be explained away in other ways), they can't be considered a phenomenon testable by the scientific method. As for ghosts, by the way, my brother's friend once asked "How come you never see any retarded [sic] or disabled ghosts?" Good question.

5) "This is just like the lack of articles showing global warming to be wrong: it's not that global warming skeptics are unscientific morons who have only a political agenda to push, it's that science journals are biased against skeptics--the political agenda is all on the side of the materialsts!" Another example of only seeing evidence you want to see. I'm an environmental scientist, and the company I work for is a carbon aggragator on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and let me tell you, there is hot debate about global warming and whether it has a human component, and there are articles published about it all the time in major peer reviewed journals. I read the literature. You don't. It's that simple. Basically you're equating global warming with a non-conservative viewpoint, and since it doesn't fit, it's wrong. Kind of closed-minded, don't you think? Don't think I've never questioned global warming; after reading the literature and weeding out the one's that I don't feel have a valid methodology, I have concluded, for myself, that global warming has both a human and a natural component, and that current predictions about it's consequences are overblown. If new evidence comes along to support or reject that conclusion, and I feel it's strong enough to change my mind, then I will change it. There - see; a scientist with an open mind. Show me someone on your side with the same gumption.

The problem with your point of view and others like you is two fold. First, you recognize bias in everyone but yourself. What if you hadn't ever heard of the Bible or Jesus? Biblical creationism wouldn't exist for you. Yes, negative evidence does not necessarily imply that it's wrong, however, one thing about evolution that makes me feel it is a valid theory is that it doesn't require you to be of any religion. It doesn't even require you to be on this planet, and, as far as we can deduce, in this galaxy to be testable. It's literally universal. Creationism is a narrow view of the world that only includes people who have ever been exposed to it. Those that aren't (other religions) make up similar creation stories that you would think are silly, yet they're based on the same flawed logic. Yet you think you're absolutely correct, and you base it on "evidence" that I can't dispute. Your argument is literally "you're wrong because I say so".

Second, you debate a topic you obviously have never bothered to read up on. I spent twelve years in Catholic school and have read the Bible from cover to cover, not to mention I own a copy of the Jefferson Bible (good reading). It only takes until Genesis chapter 2 to find a blatant, fatal contradiction in the creation story, which literal Bible readers must be content with a figurative connotation to get around because it's so obvious. I've spent years in higher education reading and studying evolution, and I read a fair amount about it in my free time. I also look for evidence of it in nature (I'm currently studying carnivorous plants in a bog in Michigan). If you read with an open mind, recognizing that you have bias, and realizing that you might be wrong (believe it or not, scientists do this all the time), you might find that creationism is best left in a history, literature, or philosophy class. Hey - you've got one up on us scientists. The Bible is relevant to all the humanities. Science just has a science class. - stubbstarbuck

:Falsifiability is important in science because if there's no test one can perform that could, in principle, show a hypothesis to be false, there's no conceivable observation that could ''support'' that hypothesis either. If creationism isn't falsifiable, it isn't science, and that's the end of it.

:Cats giving birth to dogs would ''falsify'' evolution, not support it. As would one extant species of ape giving birth to another. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Intelligent Design should not be taught in (public) schools. Intelligent design is part of (several) religions, and we have a separation of church and state. Saying that Intelligent Design is the "truth" and therefore should be taught is completely inaccurate due to the fact that religion is a BELIEF. Therefore, maybe YOU think it's truth, but I certainly don't. It all depends on your POV. Also, I don't really think we have a choice between religions, we only really have a choice between believing and not believing (as that is always a readily available option). If you were born into a Muslim family and brought up to believe that religion, would you not believe it as strongly as you believe Christianity (or w/e) today? [[User: sundevilfire|sundevilfire]]

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to learn about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

We all seem so worried about not offending those who don't believe in God or creationism, but nobody stops to think (or care) about offending those who do. I surely don't want to learn about evolution and I certainly don't believe it's true, but it's forced upon me in my AP Biology class. And if I speak out against it, the teacher basically tells me to be quiet and learn it anyways. --[[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 12:39, 16 March 2007

Just because your faith says that something is not true does not make it so. Many people in the middle ages believed that the earth was the center of the universe since God created it in the bible. We now know this to not be true.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:39, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:REPLY - The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed and there is a great amount of this evidence. Your claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings. A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone does not mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.--[[User:Tchonody|Tchonody]] 22:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.
:I hope you're joking. That's all I have to say. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Reply: In '''Science''' Class I sure hope science is relevant.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:So children shouldn't be learning theories eh? Alright, then that means the end of science altogether, and the end of math altogether. Wow. Nice education. Theories are not wrong, and they are much more true than Creationism. Give me a single thread of phsyical evidence that Creationism is correct and I will send a cheque for some large amount of money your way, because you will never be able to do so. Don't use the bible as a viable source, many people write books, what makes this one any more accurate than any other book ever written? Fossil evidence is dated using carbon dating - which is probably within several tens of thousands years accurate. That doesn't seem like it's very accurate, but when you find fossils that are approximately 200 Million years old, no-matter how many tens of thousands off it is, it's still over a hundred million. No possible way that Creationism could be true in that sense, yet you simply discard it and say the bible is right because it says so? That's extremely flawed logic. In fact, that's not logic at all. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::: I didn't think so.
:The bible will never be proven, for all you know, it was a story that kids used to read like Lord of the Rings. It's been translated and interpretted so many times, there is no way of telling what is fact, what is fiction, and what is just plain wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 18:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not an axiom - you're using the term wrong. An axiom is a rule or statement. Are you saying the truth of the bible is a postulate? Again, we get back to the same two problems in this debate, which you clearly don't understand. 1) Biblical truth is an unfalsifiable conclusion because the premise, that God spoke through people, is unfalsifiable. 2) Because of this, you must use circular logic to make your conclusion sound, and that's a logical fallacy. Therefore, this debate is silly. How can you claim that your conclusion should be taught as science when it doesn't even meet the basic definition of science? - stubbstarbuck

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

REPLY: I agree with this person more than anyone else... All I hear is the Bible can't be proven through the scientific method, yet the Bible has yet to be SCIENTIFICALLY disproven. "Faith" does not rely on "science". There is no way to disprove that a God exists, and there is also no way to disprove that evolution is God's work.

Evolution in no way conflicts with creationism. Some ill-informed creationists believe untrue facts of evolutionism, such as the "monkeys made humans" belief. But, some scientists use science as a valid fight against creationism, then say that creationism is in no way scientific. I will not the overused "circular logic" but instead call it hypocracy.

It is possible to be a Christian AND an evolutionist. Even Charles Darwin said so. So let's leave it at that. I believe in my "faith" in God. I also acknowledge that science does exist and is necessary. I don't necessarily believe in all aspects of evolutionism, but I do believe in the premise of things adapting to their environments over time. I'm sure what I'm saying will have NO impact on anyone whatsoever. Beliefs are typically implanted and can never be changed. But, I will say that the entire fight of creationism disproves evolutionism (at its core) and vice versa is stupid. Plain and simple. Thanks. - ddmdandaman

== Listen to Science, not religion. ==

The Bible is no substitute for science, not now and not ever. All these bible-toting conservatives need to learn to distinguish between the literal translation of the Bible and the actual meaning. There is a reason why we do not interpret the Bible literally: much of it can be interpreted in many ways. For example, people probably aren't about to "stone" a nonbeliever. Go with the theory proven time and time again: evolution. There is a reason that all reputable scientists believe in it. What is this reason? BECAUSE IT IS TRUE.

- We should not teach Creationism or Intelligent design for the same reason we aren't taught the theory that God created the Universe alongside that of Big Bang theory; it is a religious alternative not a scientific one. I think that it's perfectly reasonable to be taught about the theory in religious studies, but not in Science. Creationism is meant to be an alternative to scientific theory, not an alternate scientific theory.
Simply quoting from the Bible does not mean you have produced irrefutable evidence, and neither does believing in it, it is not a comprehensive tome of knowledge and I shall attempt to demonstrate how. It is certain that the Second World War happened, this is an indisputable statement. But this information is not contained at all in the pages of the Bible. We have photographs, countless individual eyewitness accounts, film, all cataloging the the events of the second world war. But nevertheless it is not in the Bible's pages. Should we therefore regard the fact that Jesus existed as somehow being ''more'' true than the fact that the Second World War happened? No we should not, it is at least ''equally'' true that the Second World War happened.
Just because evidence does not come from the Bible does not mean the evidence carries less weight.-

== Let the Children Decide ==
I agree that the bible is not substitute for science as I sincerely doubt the bible could have invented the computer or many other wonderful things.
Yes, we should teach creationism/intelligent design in schools but we should also teach the theory of evolution.
I disagree that creationism should be taught as a scientific theory because it isn't scientific.
We should teach both theory's and any others of different faiths or cultures and let the children make up there own minds in the subject because if we try to force our own view upon them then they will most likely reject them entirely and refuse to even consder them as an option. This would be, I feel, the best corse of action.

Communism

2007-03-24T03:14:59Z

Kirby: Added stuff about Marxism

'''Communism''' is an economic system, social organization, and political movement advocating the absence of personal ownership and supporting a communal society. As a political movement, communism seeks to establish a classless society by prohibiting personal economic growth. It is frequently (incorrectly) equated with a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns everything and the wealth is divided fairly among the citizens. As an economic system, communism is possible under a variety of political systems including democracy, autocracy, and monarchy.

The term communism has taken on several meanings and is often used to describe Marxism, the doctrine developed by [[Karl Marx]], and the variations of Marxism, such as those developed by [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. Marxism advocates the overthrow of capitalism by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is to create a society that is completely classless, including economic and political classes, which would result in an anarchist society. The difference between Marxism and communist-anarchism is the Marxist belief that a dictatorship of the proletariat is needed before transitioning to true communism. A socialist state would be created which would supervise the economy and unions to ensure the proletariat have the ability to sustain communism. True communism follows the dismantling of the socialist state.

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially atheist and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''.

In a famous quote, Marx described the core of communism: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs".

==Early Christian sharing==

As described in the Acts of the Apostles, early Christians practiced some form of ''voluntary'' sharing for the common good:

:And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

:Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

:And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

:And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

:Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)

Some modern preachers and scholars speak of a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting Jesus' teachings as radically materialistic rather than spiritual, especially referring to his support of the poor and his pleas to the rich to aid those who are impoverished.

However, the price for not giving every penny was steep. The Bible says, "But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

"And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband." (Acts 5:1-10)

This voluntary communal sharing among the early Christians has been described by Marxists as "communism"; Arnold Toynbee has pointed out,

:The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of Man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the father and creator of Man, but also his saviour who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, Death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>

Some small Utopian experiments and intentional communities, notably the Shakers.<ref>officially: United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing</ref> have successfully practiced similar kinds of sharing, but rarely for long.

==Modern Communism==
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments were overthrown. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].

Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, around a quarter of the world's population still lives under Communist Party rule.

The most famous of those countries governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the Tiananmien Square protests in 1989), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper.

One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs. Over 100 UN countries are still calling for an end to this highly illegal blockade of trade and services.

==See also==

[[Communism for dummies| Communism for Dummies]]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:History]]

J. Robert Oppenheimer

2007-03-24T02:53:59Z

Kirby: Fixed quote, changed some wording

Robert Oppenheimer (1904-1967) was an American theoretical physicist who was a manager in the [[Manhattan Project]] in [[Los Alamos]], [[New Mexico]]. He was a bright student and popular teacher, but his contributions to science were not comparable to those of a the leading Manhattan Project scientists.<ref>such as [[Hans Bethe|Bethe]], [[Neils Bohr|Bohr]], [[Enrico Fermi|Fermi]], [[Richard Feynman|Feynman]], [[Willard Libby|Libby]], and [[Eugene Wigner|Wigner]], who won Nobel prizes.</ref> In general, the media Oppenheimer's politics and gave him credit as "the man who built the atomic bomb."

Oppenheimer managed the laboratory at Los Alamos from 1943 to 1945. As described by the United States Department of Energy's historical account:<ref>http://www.mbe.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/basic_research.htm</ref>

:J. Robert Oppenheimer shouldered burdens both large and small, managing the numerous mundane matters such as living quarters, mail censorship, salaries, promotions, and other "quality of life" issues that were inevitable in an intellectual pressure-cooker with few social amenities. Oppenheimer relied on a group of advisers to help him keep the "big picture" in focus, while a committee made up of Los Alamos group leaders provided day-to-day communications between divisions.

Three to five scientists under Oppenheimer's supervision leaked secret information about the atomic bomb to the communist Soviet Union. These include [[Klaus Fuchs]], [[Theodore Hall]], and [[David Greenglass]].<ref>http://www.lanl.gov/history/wartime/spies.shtml</ref> Secret Soviet Union documents reviewed in the 1990s reveal two more spies, code-named Quantum and [[Perseus]] or Pers, who were also at Los Alamos during Oppenheimer's tenure. These spies have never been identified, and one could have been Oppenheimer himself.<ref>''Id.'' (without specifying Oppenheimer as [[Perseus]])</ref>.

Oppenheimer's best-known scientific contribution was to suggest a limit to the size of neutron stars. Larger neutron stars would collapse into [[black holes]] according to the theory of relativity.

Oppenheimer lived in Berkeley, [[California]], and socialized with close [[communism|communist]] friends. When Oppenheimer opposed development of the [[hydrogen bomb]] in the 1950s, an investigation into whether he lied about his communist connections resulted in the revocation of his security clearance.<ref>http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/opp06.htm</ref> This infuriated [[liberal]]s who then never forgave [[conservative]] scientists like [[Edward Teller]] for having testified against Oppenheimer, even though Teller was not cited in the decision to revoke Oppenheimer's security clearance.

Oppenheimer helped [[Congress]] draft the first laws covering the use and control of atomic energy.

In 1963, his clearance was reinstated by President Johnson. In the same year, the Atomic Energy Commission awarded him the [[Enrico Fermi]] Award.<ref>[http://dsd.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/SEABORG-ARCHIVE/index/96B05399.html J. Robert Oppenheimer receiving the AEC Enrico Fermi Award], photograph and description, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory]</ref>

The 2002 book "Sacred Secrets" produced documents from the FBI and the Soviet NKVD that allegedly prove the Oppenheimer's Communist Party membership and his ardent advocacy of sharing nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/165830.shtml]</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==External link==
*[http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=va2.document&identifier=5034F6F1-96B6-175C-9170648C02EA02F8&sort=Collection&item=Post%20Stalin%20succession%20struggle Merkulov to Beria], 2 October 1944.

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-18T02:19:33Z

Kirby:

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact
many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]