Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Judiciary

2010-12-15T19:32:08Z

Laches:

The '''judiciary''' is the branch of government vested with judicial power to make, interpret and apply the [[law]]. The term also means the court system, or the body of judges. In the United States, the judiciary shares power with the [[executive branch]] and the [[Congress|legislative branch]].

Although sub-par public schools often teach that the role of the judiciary in the United States is limited to interpretation and application of laws, historically the judiciary has made the majority of law in the United States. The power of the judiciary to make law is unique to American and British common law, with civil law jurisdictions such as France and much of Europe restricting the judiciary to interpretation and application of legislation.

Begining with the founding of the United States, the American judiciary was tasked with the creation of virtually all law related to contracts, torts, and later, corporations. It was not until the New Deal and the emergence of anti-democratic administrative agencies, that the role of courts in creating the majority of American law began to wane.

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Security

2008-12-19T17:56:37Z

Laches:

'''Security''' in law or business meaning rights in property that protect a lender against loss if the borrower defaults, or fails to repay, a [[loan]]. When a piece of property is used as security for a loan, the lendor has a security interest in such property. It is important to distinguish between security interests and securities, which are stocks and bonds that represent equity or debt interests, respectively, in a corporation or other entity.

The laws concerning security interests are separated into laws concerning personal property and laws concerning real property. Security interests in personal property are governed by Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, a form of which is in force in each state. Security interests in real property are governed by the [[mortgage]] laws of each state, which vary considerably among the states.

[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[category:bankruptcy]]

Securities

2008-12-19T17:46:47Z

Laches:

'''Securities''' are paper certificates (definitive securities) or electronic records (book-entry securities) evidencing ownership of [[equity]] ([[stocks]]) or [[debt]] obligations ([[bonds]]).

States grant owners of equity securities certain rights and protections as set forth in corporate, partnership and limited liability company statutes. The primary protections for equity holders are the fiduciary duties imposed on the officers and directors of corporations. The fiduciary duties are broadly categorized as the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. The duty of care states that officers and directors must conduct the affairs of the corporation with the prudence and care that an ordinary person would take in managing his own affairs. The duty of loyalty states that officers and directors must not take actions that benefit themselves over the company.

Owners of debt securities, on the other hand, generally are not protected by corporate, partnership and limited liability statutes and are not owed fiduciary duties and are protected only by the provisions of contract law.

In addition to state corporate laws, the issuance of debt and equity securities is regulated by the Securities Exchange Commission.

==Sources==
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/oecon/chap12.htm

[[Category:Economics]]

Law

2008-12-19T17:32:40Z

Laches:

The '''law''' is a code of rules that all people in a certain [[society]] must follow.

The law is a combination of those rules and principles of conduct promulgated by [[legislative]] authority, derived from [[court]] decisions and established by local custom.

In the United States, the law is comprised of legislative acts creating statutes, court decisions, executive orders and rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies. In certain circumstances, censoring liberal activists have taken the position that the "law" also includes any action by government actors, including prayer by teachers in schools. It is through this flawed assumption that liberals have been successful in censoring prayer in schools. The position that the actions of a school teacher are tenuous at best, and had no basis in real law until liberal activist judges gave it substance in school prayer cases in order to further their ideological preferences.

== External links ==

*[http://dictionary.law.com/ Law Dictionary]
*[http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/ Glossary of Legal Terms]
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/law/ What Liberals Say - Category: Law], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]
[[Category:Law]]

Sherman Anti Trust Act

2008-12-19T17:24:41Z

Laches:

'''The Sherman Anti-Trust Act''' is a [[law]] prohibiting contracts and combinations in restraint of trade and establishing, or conspiring to establish [[monopolies]] in trade or commerce.

[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[category:Antitrust]]

Administrative law

2008-12-19T17:11:46Z

Laches: New page: '''Administrative law''' is a broad reference to laws relating to the various regulatory and administrative agencies of the state and federal governments. In the context of the federal ...

'''Administrative law''' is a broad reference to laws relating to the various regulatory and administrative agencies of the state and federal governments.

In the context of the federal government, the vast array of administrative agencies are often referred to as the "fourth branch" of government. These include, among many others, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Federal Communications Commission. These agencies have been delegated varying degrees of legislative, judicial and executive authority, which has raised serious concerns regarding the constitutionality of the powers delegated to them by Congress. After struggling with the issue of Congress' delegation of powers for a number of years, the Supreme Court determined that the delegations are constitutional, leading to what some legal scholars now refer to as the "regulatory state." This reference is supported by the vast majority of the current law in the United States is created by regulatory agencies. This is a cause for concern, because the individuals that control these agencies are appointees and are not accountable to the citizens of the United States.

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2008-12-16T19:48:45Z

Laches: Tweaking the statistics

==Mind Altering Drugs==
The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::That sounds good to me. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::Thanks! Done.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with [[liberal friendship]] & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:: Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see ''[[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]''). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Organization ==

I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::Great job Rod!-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)

==Wow==
Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only ''after'' you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?

:::: If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::::Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see [[professor values]] - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:::: I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.

:::: As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.

::::: Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for [[Barack Obama]], to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Ohkay......... ==

Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]]]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::I think he meant Blagovejich :)-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:::PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
::::Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::::: Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::::Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Seriously? ==
Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? [[User:DM|DM]] 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

: You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.

: Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)

:: Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.

:: So is race a simple issue? [[User:DM|DM]] 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

::: It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::::Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-[[User:AlexanderM|AlexanderM]] 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

== Morally depraved nature ==

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Articles_mentioning_Conservapedia prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

== Statistical Analysis ==
Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)
:good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
:Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:: It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)

::: I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)
Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the ''10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity'' -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --[[User:SJames|SJames]] 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

:::As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated [[standard deviation]] of a distribution of means and a [[confidence interval]]. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the [[normal distribution]] used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek
:Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
:::Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
:::::I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
::::::"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
:::::::: of course. ''Bon voyage!'' [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

== My political alignment ==

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)
:But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

==question==
Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

==A further suggestion==
It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Do_Liberal_Teachings_Cause_Mental_Illness%3F ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

== "Abstract" principles ==

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

: The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::: You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

::::I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there ''plain as day'' that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. [[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Tweaking the Statistics==
With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

:* 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until ''after'' they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
:* 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
:* 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
:* 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
:* 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
:* 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Life estate

2008-12-09T18:41:12Z

Laches:

A '''life estate''' is the legal right of a person to occupy certain real property until their death, at which time the right to occupy the property will pass to another. A life estate may be granted as a "future interest" in real property.

Future interest

2008-12-09T18:40:28Z

Laches: New page: A '''future interest''' in property is a legal right to enjoy the benefits of the property at a future date.

A '''future interest''' in property is a legal right to enjoy the benefits of the property at a future date.

Life estate

2008-12-09T18:38:39Z

Laches: New page: A '''life estate''' is the legal right of a person to occupy certain real property until their death, at which time the right to occupy the property will pass to another. A life estate is...

Usufruct

2008-12-09T18:35:16Z

Laches:

'''Usufruct''' is the legal right to the use of property and the harvesting of its fruits, but not the right to dispose of the property. With regard to real property, it is vaguely similar to the common law life estate. Usufruct is a civilian legal term taken from the French Napoleonic Code and currently in use only in Louisiana.

Real property

2008-12-09T18:34:39Z

Laches:

'''Real property''' consists of [[land]], [[building]]s, and whatever is attached or affixed to the land and is generally synonymous with the words "[[real estate]]." In civil law jurisdictions, such as Louisiana and Quebec, real property is referred to as "immovable property." [[Category:Legal Terms]]

Real property

2008-12-09T18:33:01Z

Laches:

'''Real property''' consists of [[land]], [[building]]s, and whatever is attached or affixed to the land. Generally synonymous with the words "[[real estate]]." In civil law jurisdictions, such as Louisiana and Quebec, real property is referred to as "immovable property." [[Category:Legal Terms]]

Usufruct

2008-12-09T18:31:25Z

Laches: New page: Usufruct is the legal right to the use of property and the harvesting of its fruits, but not the right to dispose of the property. With regard to real property, it is vaguely similar to t...

Usufruct is the legal right to the use of property and the harvesting of its fruits, but not the right to dispose of the property. With regard to real property, it is vaguely similar to the common law life estate. Usufruct is a civilian legal term taken from the French Napoleonic Code and currently in use only in Louisiana.

Talk:Disputed Biblical Translations

2008-12-09T18:21:01Z

Laches:

==Conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on Hell==

Right now this claim is very unsubstantiated. I think the readers of this article will get more out of it if we tell them ''how'' the passage about the adulterous woman conflicts w/ Jesus emphasis on hell-- not merely say that it does. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 10:43, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: Good point. Will try to improve it now per your suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)

== Human Ghosts? ==

"''It is ironic that the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV and many other modern versions have tossed out the term Holy Ghost, yet they have introduced the totally false idea of human ghosts''"

I have never heard anyone claim that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts. On the contrary, it is against the idea. Could you please point out the basis for the claim that these versions have introduced the idea of human ghosts. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 14:28, 7 December 2008 (EST)

: You're right that the Bible does not support the idea of human ghosts. But I've given examples now of how modern translations (erroneously) do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
:: The examples do not show that modern translations support the idea of human ghosts. All the examples support is that modern translators believe that ''the people the Bible was talking about'' believed in human ghosts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:58, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:: The "commentator" mentioned in this section is a KJV-only person, who provides a poor argument overall. The quote of him is wrong (as mentioned above the examples do not show what is claimed) and should be removed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 8 December 2008 (EST)
: I would imagine that when people say that the bible supports the idea of human ghosts they are referring to 1 Samuel 28, in which Saul has a witch summon the deceased Samuel for counsel. I have always been personally surprised by the depiction of this story in the bible and I wonder if its translation has changed from the older manuscripts. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 13:21, 9 December 2008 (EST)

== Adulteress story ==

I've removed some bits for the following reasons:
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against capital punishment.
* I don't ever recall seeing anybody use the passage to argue against hell. The reference supposedly supporting this claim was actually using the passage to argue against ''condemnation'' of any sort, as part of a larger argument against the existence of hell, but this passage itself wasn't being used to argue against hell itself.
* I can't see how the passage conflicts with other teaching about hell.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)
:Quite the contrary, it's used ''extensively'' by liberal denominations who try to push the "no condemnation" "everyone is saved" view. I've personally had numerous conversations with "liberal Christians" who brought up the passage to deny Hell itself. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

:: Right. There's no denying how this passage is used to deny the existence of [[Hell]] (which, by the way, should be capitalized), oppose capital punishment, and even bully anyone who condemns sin in an effective way. There is already one reference to an example and more could be easily found.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:46, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Tort

2008-10-02T19:07:11Z

Laches:

A '''tort''' is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. The law of torts is generally separated into negligence and intentional torts. Under the common law "duty/breach" analysis, negligence is an act or omission that breaches a duty and causes harm. Generally, people have the duty to act as "reasonably prudent persons" and if a person does not act as a reasonably prudent person and an injury results, the person may be liable in tort.

Intentional torts include:

'''Torts Against the Person'''
- Battery
- Assault
- False imprisonment
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress

'''Torts Against Property'''
- Trespass to land
- Trespass to chattels
- Conversion
- Intentional interference with a contractual relationship

'''Torts Against Economic and Dignitary Interests'''
- Defamation
- Slander
- Libel
- Invasion of privacy

The word tort comes from the [[Latin]] ''tortum'', which means bent or twisted.<ref>http://m-w.com/dictionary/tort</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Law]]

Tort

2008-10-02T19:06:18Z

Laches:

A '''tort''' is a civil wrong for which the law provides a remedy. The law of torts is generally separated into negligence and intentional torts. Under the common law "duty/breach" analysis, negligence is an act or omission that breaches a duty and causes harm. Generally, people have the duty to act as "reasonably prudent persons" and if a person does not act as a reasonably prudent person and an injury results, the person may be liable in tort.

Intentional torts include:

'''Torts Against the Person'''
-Battery
-Assault
-False imprisonment
-Intentional infliction of emotional distress

'''Torts Against Property'''
-Trespass to land
-Trespass to chattels
-Conversion
-Intentional interference with a contractual relationship

'''Torts Against Economic and Dignitary Interests'''
-Defamation
-Slander
-Libel
-Invasion of privacy

The word tort comes from the [[Latin]] ''tortum'', which means bent or twisted.<ref>http://m-w.com/dictionary/tort</ref>

==References==
<references />

[[Category:Law]]

Venue

2008-10-02T18:30:13Z

Laches:

'''Venue''' means the proper [[court]] to hear a matter. Venue is generally based on facts and circumstances giving rise to the case occurring in the geographical area where the court sits.
[[category:law]]
[[category:venue]]

Jurisdiction

2008-10-02T18:25:35Z

Laches:

'''Jurisdiction''' is the [[power]] or authority of a court to hear and try a case; the geographic area in which a court has power, or the types of cases it has power to hear.

Explained another way, '''jurisdiction''' is the legal authority of a [[court]] to hear and decide a case that arose in a certain geographic area or a certain type of case. It is closely related to [[venue]], which refers to the specific [[court]] where it is most proper to have a case heard. In a particular case, multiple courts may have jurisdiction, and the rules of venue determine which particular court with jurisdiction will hear the case.

In the United States, jurisdiction is separated into two separate types: personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the authority of a court to enter a judgment against a particular person. Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to enter judgments on a particular subject. Some courts, such as federal district courts are courts of general jurisdiction and can enter judgments on nearly any area of federal law. Other courts, such as state family courts, are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only enter judgments on certain subjects.

== External links ==

*[http://dictionary.law.com/ Law Dictionary]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Jurisdiction

2008-10-02T18:23:55Z

Laches:

'''Jurisdiction''' is the [[power]] or authority of a court to hear and try a case; the geographic area in which a court has power, or the types of cases it has power to hear.

Explained another way, '''jurisdiction''' is the legal authority of a [[court]] to hear and decide a case that arose in a certain geographic area or a certain type of case. It is closely related to [[venue]], which refers to the specific [[court]] where it is most proper to have a case heard. In a particular case, multiple courts may have jurisdiction, and the rules of venue determine which particular court with jurisdiction will hear the case.

In the United States, jurisdiction is broken down into to separate types: personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the authority of a court to enter a judgment against a particular person. Subject matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to enter judgments on a particular subject. Some courts, such as federal district courts are courts of general jurisdiction and can enter judgments on nearly any area of federal law. Other courts, such as state family courts, are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only enter judgments on certain subjects.

== External links ==

*[http://dictionary.law.com/ Law Dictionary]

[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Trespass

2008-10-02T18:08:34Z

Laches:

'''Trespass''' is the wrongful act of going onto someone else's land, or placing an object on the land, without the permission of the owner or remaining on land after permission has been revoked. It is a crime, though usually only prosecuted if the trespasser refuses to leave after being told to do so.

Trespass is also a [[tort]]. Under tort law, trespassing is separated into two branches: trespass to land and trespass to chattels. The tort of trespass to land is generally the same as a criminal trespass. The owner can sue for damages regardless of whether the trespasser realized that he was on someone else's land. This [[tort]] reflects the view of the [[English]] [[common law]] that property ownership is absolute. Trespass to chattels is a minor interference with a person's ownership or use of personal property. More severe interference constitutes conversion.
[[Category:Legal Terms]]

Talk:Essay:25 Worst Court Decisions

2007-11-30T21:40:35Z

Laches:

Just some suggesttions for cases you might want to consider adding to your list:

United States v Callender-upheld the Sedition Act, which made criticizing the gov't a crime

The "Civil Rights" cases (US v Stanley, US v Ryan, etc)-Congress has no power to prohibit private discrimination, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the federal government

The "Slaughterhouse" cases-The 14th Amendment doesn't apply to state governments

Lochner v New York-the birth of the Substantive Due Process theory, beginning of modern "judicial activism"

Korematsu v US-In time of war, US citizens may be detained without trial merely because of their ancestry --[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 10:34, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: Good suggestions. I'll add the Callender case immediately, and welcome comments on the others.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:52, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

I love the idea of this essay. Clearly there is a lot of judicial activism and legislating from the bench, and this is a great way to really highlight some of the more egregious decisions. I've made an edit, which I hope is ok. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Worst?==

Shouldn't there be some sort of specified criteria as to what makes a case more bad than any other? Additionally, shouldn't the facts be combined with the legal questions presented to educate the children viewing this site as to what would exactly make a court decision worse than any other? This seems like nothing more than a cheap, political attack at an unfavorable opinion, not a legally erroneous one. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 01:36, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Epperson v. Arkansas ==

The decision in that case was not "evolution ''has'' to be taught", it was that you could not legally ban evolution from being taught in a public school setting. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 11:03, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
:Now I see that you're trying to condemn the case by condemning the justice who wrote the decision. This is a simple ''ad hominem'' attack, and is thus not a valid arguement. Also, the decision is still mischaracterized—see above. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 07:57, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Worst Case==

I think we should include Plyler v. Doe (1982) That mandated the education of illegal immigrants in public schools. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 20:14, 4 November 2007 (EST)

: Wow, what a superb suggestion! That case should be on the list. It was a decision by the liberal Justice William Brennan, I think.

: What decision should we take out to make room for it? Some have suggested reducing the duplicate-issue cases. Perhaps we have we could swap out one of the Establishment Clause cases, for example. You choose. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Either Engel v. Vitale or Stone v. Graham. They both involve religion in public schools almost redundantly. I believe that Plyler v. Doe should be placed very high as it is used as a precedent to strengthen the foothold of illegal immigrants in other instances as well. It also costs taxpayers billions. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]]

I am curious as to how Schlafly justifies his failure to include Plessy in this list and his decision to include Cooper, which was an enforcement Brown v. Board.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:40, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Talk:Behavioral psychology

2007-07-22T04:48:25Z

Laches:

This page is innacurate and should be restarted from scratch. A good start will be separating Behaviorism and and Radical Behaviorism, which are entirely different schools of thought. It should also be clarified that Pavlov was not a behaviorist or a psychologist at all, but rather a neurologist with no interest in psychology. His experiments were meant as a neurological study, and it was by somewhat of a fluke that he ended up being one of the most popular names in psychology. Also, I would take issue with the statement that behaviorists believe that behavior is output derived purely from environmental inputs. If this can be ascribed to any psychologist it would be to Watson, a behaviorist, and not Skinner, a radical behaviorist. This article needs to address the point of behaviorism, which was to move away from the armchair psychology that preceded it.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 00:48, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Wicca

2007-07-06T21:33:49Z

Laches: /* Wiccan Morality */

'''Wicca''' is a pagan [[religion]] which involves the practicing of [[witchcraft]]. While witchcraft has ancient roots, it has little to do with the modern incarnation called Wicca. Wicca has many different sects and groups, but has no central body or governing organization, or a holy book. Wiccans belong to small, local organizations called "covens" or practice "solitary", as they see fit. Because Wicca encourages its followers to question what they are taught and develop their own practices, it can be very difficult to come up with a universal definition of what a Wiccan is. However, most Wiccans do share a few core concepts, including a respect for and a desire to live in rhythm with nature, the worship of a Goddess and/or a God, and a basic code of values.{{fact}} Wicca calls on the practitioner to act as their own priest/ess, interacting directly with deity or spirit force.

==Wiccan Morality==
Most Wiccans submit to two basic rules of morality, the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law. ''The Rede'' states: "And it harm none, do as you will," meaning that you may do what you like, so long as you do not offer harm to others or to yourself. The Threefold Law states that what you send out in both the mundane and magical planes will return to you, though not necessarily by three.

==Wiccans and Deity==
Wiccans may be either monotheistic or polytheistic; the monotheists simply directing their spells and prayers to Spirit, and the polytheists subscribing to a variety of historical pantheons, including Celtic, Greek, Nordic, Roman, and even Chinese, Japanese, and Indian; or some combination of the above. Nearly all Wiccans, however, subscribe to the idea of Spirit being divided into two polarities, the [[male]] and the [[female]]. The male polarity is the God, or the Green Man; the female polarity is the Goddess, whom herself is split into the three parts of Maiden, Mother, and Crone. They are also often called the Lord and Lady.

==Wiccans and Magic==
"Wicca" is a pagan religion. "Witchcraft" refers to the practice of magic. Most Wiccans are also witches in that they practice magic, but there are those Wiccans who do not practice magic, and there are those who practice magic, but do not call themselves Wiccans, or even [[Pagan]]. Most magicians, however, are not Wiccans.

==Wiccan Holy Days==
Wiccans usually celebrate the eight Sabbats and the thirteen Esbats. The Sabbats follow the solar cycle, and are as follows:

*Imbolc (Feb. 1)
*Ostara (March 21)
*[[May Day|Beltaine]] (May 1)
*Midsummer Day (June 21)
*Lammas (Aug. 1, sometimes called Lughnasadh)
*Mabon (Sept. 21)
*[[Halloween|Samhain]] (Oct. 31)
*Yule (Dec. 21/22)
The esbats follow the lunar cycle, and are generally celebrated on the full moon.

==The Four Elements==
Wiccan worship is conducted in a [[circle]], and the participants call on the four traditional elements of [[Air]], [[Fire]], [[Water]], and [[Earth]] at the respective [[cardinal]] points of [[East]], [[South]], [[West]], and [[North]]. Air and Fire are considered masculine elements, and Water and Earth are considered feminine. Air is generally represented by an athame or a [[sword]], and stands for the east, the [[new moon]], [[spring]], the intellect, and new beginnings. Fire is represented by a wand or [[candle]], and stands for the south, [[summer]], the waxing moon, will, passion, and transformation. Water is represented by a chalice and stands for the west, the [[full moon]], emotions, cleansing, and the season of fall. Earth is represented by the pentacle or a bowl of [[salt]], and stands for [[winter]], silence, [[death]], the waning moon, and the practical matters of everyday living.

==Wiccans and Ritual==
The general procedure for a Wiccan ritual is as follows:

*Cleansing of the sacred space with incense/[[holy water]]
*Forming of the circle
*Invoking the four quarters/elements
*Invoking the Lord and Lady
*Invoking of the ancestral dead
*State intent of [[ritual]]
*Drawing down of sun/moon (optional)
*Perform magical work
*Cakes and Ale
*Devoke ancestors
*Thank and release Deity
*Thank and release quarters
*Devoke circle
*cleanup

This is not a hard and fast outline. The drawing down of the moon would generally only occur during an esbat (see above), just as the drawing down of the sun would generally only occur during a [[sabbat]]. A solitary performing a ritual, or a group performing a simpler ritual may opt not to do these things, just as they may opt not to invoke the ancestors or serve the Cakes and Ale.

==History of Wicca==
Although there are elements of Wicca which date back to ancient times (the Sabbat fire festivals, for example), it does not tie to any particular religious practice from ancient times. Most aspects of Wicca are modern and were made in the last fifty years. Wicca was first popularized in England by Gerald Gardner after the repeal of Britain's laws banning Witchcraft. Gardner was a noted [[libertarian]] with [[conservative]] politics. These attitudes are still adhered to by those who follow his religion in the form in which he created it, who are known as 'Gardnerians'. Nowadays, there are many forms of Wicca, including Alexandrian, Dianic, [[Druid]]ic, Corellian, Stregha (Italian witchcraft), Faery, and many others. There are also many Solitary and Eclectic practitioners, who follow no set tradition at all.
[[Category:religion]]

Talk:Behavioral psychology

2007-06-13T22:09:06Z

Laches:

Talk:Behavioral psychology

2007-06-13T22:08:25Z

Laches: New page: This page is innacurate and should be restarted from scratch. A good start will be separating Behaviorism and and Radical Behaviorism, which are entirely different schools of thought. It...

This page is innacurate and should be restarted from scratch. A good start will be separating Behaviorism and and Radical Behaviorism, which are entirely different schools of thought. It should also be clarified that Pavlov was not a behaviorist or a psychologist at all, but rather a neurologist with no interest in psychology. His experiments were meant as a neurological study, and it was by somewhat of a fluke that he resulted being one of the most popular names in psychology. Also, I would take issue with the statement that behaviorists believe that behavior is output derived purely from environmental inputs. If this can be ascribed to any psychologist it would be to Watson, a behaviorist, and not Skinner, a radical behaviorist. This article needs to address the point of behaviorism, which was to move away from the armchair psychology that preceded it.

Sigmund Freud

2007-06-13T21:53:07Z

Laches:

[[Image:freud-thumb.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Freud in his laboratory]]
'''Sigmund Freud''' (1856–1939) was the founder of [[psychoanalysis]].

In 1938 he left fled Vienna and persecution by the [[Nazi]]s to North [[London]], [[England]], where he lived until his death in 1939.

Freud is best known for his theories of the [[unconscious mind]], especially involving the mechanism of [[repression]]; his symbolic interpretation of dreams; his redefinition of sexual desire as mobile and directed towards a wide variety of objects; and his therapeutic technique, especially his understanding of [[transference]] in the therapeutic relationship and the symbolic interpretation of dreams as sources of insight into [[unconscious desire]]s. <ref>See also The Unconscious Before Freud, by Lancelot Law Whyte, 1979 [www.amazon.com/Unconscious-Before-Freud-Lancelot-Whyte/dp/0312828705]</ref>

Freud proposed that the human [[psyche]] consists of three parts -- [[ego]], [[super-ego]], and [[id]] -- and that [[defense mechanism]]s are an attempt by the mind to resolve conflicts between the super-ego and the id.

Freud's theories are viewed by some as unscientific because they lack [[falsifiability]], as pointed out by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>Popper, Karl R.: [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html 'Science as Falsification'], ''Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge'' (London, 1963) </ref> No one has ever been able to do any experiment that showed any merit to any of Freud's work. Freud lied about his own subjects to make it appear that his psychoanalysis had some benefit.<ref>"The verdict has been uniformly negative: Freud as a scientist, metapsychologist, and diagnostician of society emerges as a quack. This view has not greatly perturbed true believers." [http://human-nature.com/freud/tallis.html]</ref>

While Freud's theories have not withstood empirical testing, his therapeutic methods continue to have a lasting importance in psychotherapy. As recently as 1987 approximately 75% of practicing therapists relied on Freud's psychoanalytic ideas in therapy. (Pope, K.S., Tabachnick, B. & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1987). Ethics of practice: The beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as therapists. ''American Psychologist, 42,'' 993-1006). Among the techniques instituted by Freud that are still in use today are talk therapy (simply talking through problems), free association (allowing the client to say whatever comes to mind), and transference (promoting an emotional relationship between the therapist and client in order to aid in the healing process).

Much of Freud's psychosexual theories and his tripartite model have failed any empirical investigation. Psychoanalysis as a [[clinical psychology | clinical]] method has in many cases been shown to be as effective as other talk therapies,{{fact-science}}
but this is not likely to reflect the accuracy or inaccuracy of the underlying theories, but rather the positive effect of talking about one's problems.

Sigmund Freud died of maxillary [[cancer]] at the age of 82.

==World War II==
In order to prevent [[Nazis]] from banning psychoanalysis as "Jewish science", Sigmund Freud thought he needed a non-Jewish spokesperson for the psychoanalysis movement. He choose [[Carl Jung]].

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:psychologists|Freud, Sigmund]]

Talk:Witchcraft

2007-06-07T23:19:24Z

Laches: /* Suggestion */

== Inquisition? ==
This article looks like it has been copied from a 15th century inquisition guidebook.

Can someone who's knowledgeable on this subject insert something on which burnings, and witchcraft in other cultures/religion, besides Medieval Christian Europe?
[[User:MiddleMan|MiddleMan]]

Middleman, I have attempted to make factual changes, however I have been accused by another contributor as adding personal bias. If you have any ideas, i'm happy to listen to them!
--[[User:Mistress|Mistress]] 21:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== Witchcraft and the truth ==

I have been watching this discussion for some time now. And I must say I am really amazed at what I have seen going on. I have watched as others repeatedly tried to explain that a witch is not evil and seen them be blocked from posting again. I have also read where this site is supposed to be based on the truth. Well if that is so why are the posts from ones that are telling the truth being banned? What do you not want the truth told? A witch is NOT evil. A witch does not worship the devil. Satanists worship the devil. A witch does not even believe in the devil. A witch might believe in Baal, an underworld god or a witch might believe in Gaia, the earth or a witch might believe in Hecate. the goddes of childbirth, but you will never hear a witch say she believes in the devil. I am also amazed at the christian undertones that are raging through this discussion. Is this a decision on what witchcraft truly is? Or is it a discussion based on Christian belief? I remember reading in the bible in Matthew 7:1 Judge not lest ye be judged. It would seem to me a lot of judging and casting of the first stone is being done in this discussion. I am also sure my ip address will be blocked by the time this posts. That is a shame because this could have been a good discussion with a chance at real knowledge being shared. {{unsigned|Ladyinred58}}

:You claim that witches are not evil, and you claim that to be the truth, but all we appear to have is your word for that. On the other hand, we also have claims (in the Bible) that witchcraft ''is'' "evil" (i.e. wrong). So why should we believe you over the Bible? You are taking Matthew 7:1 out of context, by the way, as bibliosceptics typically do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually I am far from a sceptic on the bible. As for taking Matt 7:1 out of context, I truly believe that in this context it is correct. How can any of us judge a witch to be evil unless we are truly free of evil ourselves. Doesn't Matt 7:2-5 say "2.For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3.And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4.Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5.Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Doesn't this mean that we should free ourselves from evilness before we state another is evil?" [[User:ladyinred58|ladyinred58]] 11:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::First, my apologies for putting my message in a way that could be misunderstood. I normally avoid saying that a ''person'' is evil, as distinct from their ''actions''. Not that I said that witches were evil, but that could be inferred from my comments.
::Having said that, though, I didn't actually say that we should judge a witch to be evil. I said that the Bible says that witch''craft'' is evil. If we can't "judge" something to be evil on the basis of what the Bible declares to be evil, then as long as we are still sinners (which we are until we die), we can't "judge" anything at all, yet as the following verses that you quoted indicate, we ''can'' judge, as long as we don't do so hypocritically. We would be hypocritical to judge witchcraft as evil if we were practising witchcraft, but not if we are "merely" sinners/evil in a different way.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

You say that "You claim that witches are not evil, and you claim that to be the truth, but all we appear to have is your word for that" - if you or anyone else wants proof, talk to a few witches. Find out what they're all about and what witchcraft actually is, or even look it up on the internet - better yet, visit [http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usfl&c=basics&id=2870 | Witchvox's FAQ page]and read up on what you're discussing here. You seem like a reasonable guy, and I think you might learn a few new things if you open your mind and ask some questions. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 06:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT) (I'm sorry about my awful linking)

:Sorry if this seems harsh, but how do we know that we can trust the witches to tell the truth? The point is, I come from a perspective that God has told us that witchcraft is wrong, so if it's a case of choosing between what God has said and what witches say, then I'll choose the omniscient, infallible God any day.
:Of course that view is based on the view that God really is omniscient and infallible, but given that presumption, then I hope that you can see that the rest naturally follows.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perfectly understandable viewpoint Phillip. The article still reads like a weird rant with no references to scripture and no history or anything though. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 07:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I'm not for one moment suggesting that the current article is satisfactory or that it couldn't do with improvement. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Doesn't the [[wicca]] article look much better or shouldn't this article simply redirect to the [[wicca]] article. I am definitely no expert on this. Maybe, someone more knowledgable should sort out the differences --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 13:25, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

That's a real catch-22 - witches are not liars because they're witches, but you won't believe that because a witch tells you. It amazes me you believe something like that, and I really hope you learn better one day. Finally, the Bible is a book written by men - as in it wasn't faxed down as it is today from Heaven by God himself (I say 'faxed' for lack of a better word). I really don't want to discuss the can of worms that opens because I'm not here trying to discredit your whole religion, just to try and bring some fact to this 'article' everyone's locked out of. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 08:23, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The point that I was trying to make is that what one believes about this issue (as with many issues) depends on other beliefs, such as those that comprise one's worldview. My comments above, as Fingermouse apparently understands, is entirely consistent with my worldview, but inconsistent with your worldview. The solution is to find some common ground and build on that. But your view that the Bible is a book written by men (as though that's all it is, and it is therefore fallible), is not that common ground, because that is part of your worldview and not part of mine.
:I can understand that you don't want to open that "can of worms", but unless you do, we will remain with different views of witchcraft, because each of our views are inexorably based on our respective worldviews. If you want to discuss the validity of witchcraft, then you ''must'' start from the point of divergence, which is different worldviews. Anything else is futile. Of course, it is your decision whether or not you choose to discuss it at all.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== "Witchcraft" article content ==

The content of this article is a disgrace to this "encyclopedia" - there is no truth to be found about witchcraft in this piece of writing, save that the word 'witchcraft' is spelled correctly. In undoing the alleged "biased vandalism", you have erased actual correct information. Perhaps one day you'll find out the truth - I hope it's sooner rather than later, so you can stop misinforming the world. Open your mind and consider the possibility you may be wrong.
--[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 22:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I suggest dividing it up: a section for info about christian views of witchcraft, and after that, a more encycloepdic entry about the history of witchcraft, including the inquisition, the burnings, the Salem stuff etc. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 07:06, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Excellent idea - everyone that visits can then differentiate between subjective, religion-influenced views and fact. Very good thought. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 07:13, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

A properly structured article would be infinitely preferable to the current weird rant. Where is the history? What does the Bible actually say? Where are the references to scripture? How has witchcraft been viewed through the ages? Properly researched and written, this has the potential to be a great historical article. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 07:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, just be sure to put the Bible-oriented point of view in *first*- considering this IS Conservapedia after all- but both part´s lenght should be about the same, as to not discriminate between either point of view. A subtle (or not-so subtle) conservative bias is OK, as long as there IS another point of view present, too. Thus, the reader is given several points of view, and they can thus construct their own. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 07:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:LunarStorm, what makes you think that the "religion-influenced view" is subjective? Surely if the omniscient God has told us that something is the case, you can't get much more objective than that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Religion is something believed by someone - a personal opinion on the universe, you could say. Because of this, written pieces like this 'article', that are influenced by religion, are subjective. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 08:27, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:As I've just posted above, if you want to debate something like this, you need to start from common ground and build from there. That Christianity (which is the "religion" in question here) is merely a personal opinion is ''not'' that common ground, because you and I both have different views on that. For me, Christianity is simply acknowledgement that God is real and as described in the Bible. That is, we are not talking about subjective beliefs, but about truth-claims. Is God real or not? Did He actually declare witchcraft to be wrong, or not? If the answers to those questions are Yes He is and Yes He did, then it naturally follows that witchcraft ''is'' wrong. But so many bibliosceptics fail to address those questions, instead ''avoiding'' those questions by claiming, as though it is accepted or self-evident (neither of which is the case), that Christianity is merely a subjective belief. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

::Evidently I can't change your mind - maybe someday you'll accept witchcraft isn't evil, and I hope you do. I won't be wasting my time on Conservapedia anymore, but I hope you'll discover something that opens your mind and makes you ask questions. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:::And maybe someday you'll accept Jesus as your personal saviour, and I hope you do. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Just noticed, it´s kind of useless to plan adding in a history section or similar, when the article has been protected. A great discussion indeed, when only one side of the discussion actually has the right to edit the article. Thus, You Win, I Lose, and will now keep my mouth shut for the time being. Useless arguing hurts my head, I rather contribute something. ->
[[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 08:57, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

A healthy debate may well lead to a good, encyclopedic article, it's what the Talk pages are here for. It may well take longer but will prevent edit conflicts and will give everyone a chance to have their say. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 09:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

I at the very least request from PJ Rayment that he add in a section mentioning the witch-burnings that took place during the medieval period, a link to the [[Salem Witch Hunt]] article, which I believe to be a suitable warning of what can happen when matters get out of hand- if you notice, they actually went and executed a girl of the age of 4 years. [[User:FreakyM|FreakyM]] 00:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)
:When I suggested that you make requests here for sysops to add content to the article, I was meaning supplying the specific text. I will add the link, but not the rest until I have some specific text that I can copy in (although I'm not promising to automatically put whatever you write, of course). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

==Something I Noticed==

"You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. Please add factual and verifiable content, edit phrases to make them non problematic, or make this article more grammatically correct. Please remember to abide by The Conservapedia Commandments in your actions, though."

It's impossible to add factual and verifiable content, edit phrases to make them non'''-'''problematic or correct grammar when the article is protected.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 02:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:You have two options: Ask the locking sysop to unlock the article, or propose changes on this page so that a sysop can add the changes for you. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Phillip for giving some guidelines to use as response.

I m unsure how to make my response non problematic as the topic deals with something most often related to personal perception, making an alternative view problematic in that it may be misconstrued as argumentative.

To this end I am including a few quotes from sources I consider both informed and respected rather than simply voicing my opinion.

Witchcraft
the exercise or invocation of alleged supernatural powers to control people or events, practices typically involving sorcery or magic. Although defined differently in disparate historical and cultural contexts, witchcraft has often been seen, especially in the West, as the work of crones who meet secretly at night, indulge in cannibalism and orgiastic rites with the Devil, and perform black magic. Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world. The intensity of these beliefs is best represented by the European witch-hunts of the 14th to 18th century, but witchcraft and its associated ideas are never far from the surface of popular consciousness and—sustained by folk tales—find explicit focus from time to time in popular television and films and in fiction.
(Source - Encyclopedia Britanica Online)

While this is not perhaps a definitive explanation of Witchcraft I think it makes some interesting points and raises some issues in relation to the conservapedia article (http://www.conservapedia.com/Witchcraft)

The main issue being a non factual statement in the first sentence of said article.

While Witchcraft may indeed include the use of "black Magic" it is not the same thing, nor is it necessary to practice "Black Magic" in order to practice Witchcraft.

In order to be a more factual and acturate article, may I suggest it be worded more factually thus:
"Witchcraft is the practice of magic, including Black Magic...." Magic being defined as: A concept used to describe a mode of rationality or way of thinking that looks to invisible forces to influence events, effect change in material conditions, or present the illusion of change. (Source - Encyclopedia Britanica Online)

The second issue I would raise is the use of the word Evil in the conservapedia article. To define any religious practice thusly is to make a judgement of the intention of the practitioner. Quite ok when one is sharing one's religious views, but perhaps not quite balanced when one is presuming to make a stated fact for encyclopedic use. Personally I don't believe all modern witches have malicious or evil intent when practicing magic (based on the conservapedia definition of evil: "Evil is defined as taking advantage of another person for one's own benefit." http://www.conservapedia.com/Evil)

While this may indeed be one use for magic, it is not customarily used by modern witches solely for this purpose. The Wiccan creed states: "Do as Ye Will and Harm Ye None" signifying an intention to not harm or cause harm to another person.

The next issue I would raise would be the sentence: "especially with malevolent intent"

Based on the above statement of intent from the wiccan creed, I would dare argue that this is not actually correct. Perhaps a more factual statement would be: "Witchcraft can be used with malevolent intent". Malevolent being defined as 1.having or exibiting ill will;wishing harm to others; malicious. 2.having an evil or harmful influence (source http://www.thefreedictionary.com/malevolent)

Thankyou for taking the time to share your views and to place this article, and to allow input and changes as necessary. I would like to suggest to the sysop that perhaps the article could begin with "Witchcraft as defined from a Christian (Or Judeo Christian) perspective is... then the article need not be changed as it would be factual and correct.

With Love and Pure intent,
Melodie

:Melodie, this looks quite good. I can only think that the article was locked because somebody had their own preconceived ideas about what a witch is and refused to listen to new editors. Anyway that is none of my concern. I don't know how qualified you are to comment but some of the dogmatic thought about witches might stem, from the KJV quotes in the article. The KJV version was written when there was a lot of hysteria about witches anyway so the translation may just reflect the prejudices of the time, and if not, it may certainly be couched in the language of the period. I would be interested in knowing the original Biblical passages with explanations of the translation from a scholar in Aramaic/Hebrew or what ever language this was first written in, as the term witch might have a different meaning from the current Halloween stereotype. [[User:InGodWeTrust|InGodWeTrust]] 00:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, Melodie. Hopefully, if and when the article is unlocked, those changes will be made and allowed to remain. --[[User:LunarStorm|LunarStorm]] 00:55, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::As I just said above, I'll be looking for specific text to put in, not just suggestions that would require me to research and write it. I'm out of time at the moment, but I'll try and remember to have another read of this in a few hours and see what might be usable from it. I'm not a fan of the AV (KJV) anyway (mainly because of its out-of-date language), so I might well replace the verses with ones from modern translations, at least. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

Why not simply add a short one or two sentence note that some neopagan groups call themselves witches as well and that this use seems to be distinct from the Biblical use? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:22, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:First, we'd have to be sure that this is distinct. What if it's the same? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Well as I understand it, the major scholarly work on the topic is Heselton's ''Wiccan Roots''. Heselton and all other major scholars agree that the neo-pagans constructed their ideas largely out of whole cloth and are not the witches referred to in the Bible or other early sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:39, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I've no real involvement in this article but the first 4 sentences still read like a weird rant. True or not, depending on your religious views (and mine don't condone witchcraft), these are still written in a style unbecoming of an encyclopedia (one written by adults anyway). Please can someone rewrite them with the proper links to the Bible and less of the ranting. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 20:11, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:Are we saying then that there are two entirely different types of people called witches? That's like having two entirely different theories of evolution. It's no help using one word for two different concepts - especially when the concepts appear similar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, there are two different types. Essentially the early neo-pagans claimed (and some more recent neo-pagans still claim) to be the same type as described in the Bible but the consensus among historians is that there is at best a very minimal and tenuous connection. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:39, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Huh? Did you just say that there are two different types, but that one type ''claims'' to be the same as the other? If so, do we treat them as the same? Or do we treat them as different and them call them liars for making a false claim of similarity? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:05, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I just dislike the opening paragraph as reading rather badly (in terms of language, not intent).

How about: "Witchcraft, often referred to as "magic" or "black magic", is the use of supernatural powers as prohibited in the [[Bible]]. Witchcraft includes any act or instance of employing sorcery regardless of intent. Witchcraft calls upon powers other than those of God, the opposite of Christian prayer. Christians who believe in Biblical truth consider witchcraft to be against the teachings of God and hence evil."

Not Shakespeare by any account but succinct and less ranty than the original without diluting the message. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 20:24, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Love your work fingermouse :) My only suggestion would be to add a single word....

For example:"Witchcraft, often referred to as "magic" or "black magic", is the use of supernatural powers as prohibited in the [[Bible]]. Witchcraft includes any act or instance of employing sorcery regardless of intent. Witchcraft calls upon powers other than those of God, the opposite of Christian prayer. Christians who believe in Biblical truth consider witchcraft to be against the teachings of God and hence considered evil."

I would also like to add to the debate re: what a witch is.. the only Witch described in the bible is the witch of Endor.. she used her supernatural powers to raise the spirit of Solomon to speak to samuel(from memory) this would suggest Witches as defined by the bible would actually be what is modernly referred to as either a Necromancer or Medium.

In Love and Humble intent

Melodie

:I've put Fingermouse's version in, without alteration. I didn't feel that Melodie's additional word was warranted, as the sentence was already qualified by the word "consider"; it didn't need repeating.
:Not that I think this introduction is perfect, but I agree that it is better than what it replaced. Hopefully others will make further suggestions regarding it.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Thank you Phillip. Agreed it's not perfect but it reads a little less like a rant. Hopefully others can suggest improvements. [[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 10:40, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Thankyou Phillip, I did not read the first "consider" and apologise for the repetition.
Blissings
Melodie

I hate to put forth an entirely negative note, but I'm going to anyway. This article has no substance and it presents no useful information about witchcraft. This page should be moved to debate and a search for witchcraft should link to the wicca page, which has a solid, if strongly liberal, basis for an informational page on witchcraft. With pages like this, I honestly don't understand how conservapedia expects to develop a respectable reputation. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 19:19, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2007-06-02T16:46:44Z

Laches: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.

Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, <ref>The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, <ref>Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html NARTH] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?

2007-05-28T18:42:46Z

Laches: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

The theory of "evolution through natural selection" is ''predicated'' upon an atheistic assumption. It is based on so-called [[methodological naturalism]], i.e., a refusal to consider supernatural causes. Right from the start it consciously and deliberately rules out God's creative and guiding power.

Legislation and especially court rulings in the United States enforce this atheistic doctrine. In public schools, during science class, teachers are authorized to ''squelch'' any challenge to this atheistic premise. Note that I do not mean that science classes simply say, let's ignore God. I mean that ''by choosing to ignore God'' they are supporting atheism and attacking religion.

The doctrine of [[unguided evolution]] is essential to atheism. No atheist can survive intellectually, without having a satisfactory answer to the question, "Where did human beings come from? How did life begin? Why is planet Earth so hospitable to life?" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==
Ed Poor's argument is based on the assumption that humans can fathom the manner in which God created life. This is a faulty premise. The majority of scientists support the theory of evolution and the vast majority of scientists believe in God. They are able to have both of these beliefs because they realize that we cannot possibly understand the works of God. On the other hand, we can seek understanding of the world we live in by creating theories based on our observations. The theory of evolution says nothing about the existence of God. It is simply a theory, based on certain observations, that creates certain predictions.

If evolution is undermining religion, it is doing so only because creationists posit that they know how God created life, and evolution is not how He created it. When evolution is supported, creationists feel like their beliefs are being undermined. Belief in evolution is an exercise in humility and perseverance - accepting the fact that we cannot understand God's works combined with an unceasing effort to understand what we can in our world.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 14:42, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2007-05-24T20:07:52Z

Laches: /* NO */