Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?

2009-09-30T23:34:38Z

LincolnShuddered:

To Quote [[Douglas Adams]], from [[The Salmon of Doubt]]:

"Whatever happens, happens. If in happening, something causes something else to happen, then something else happens. If in happening, something causes itself to happen again, it happens again."

--[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 17:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::so you can ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?"? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why something, rather than nothing', is intriguing. On one level, an unsatisfactory answer can be found in The Anthropic Principle; there is something because we are here to ask the question. However, that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.

In science, the vaccuum of space is not empty; at the large scale, it is space contorted by gravitational fields, on the small scale it is quantum foam. Things pop in and out of existence, virtual pairs of particles are created and annhilated. Empty space it is not.

In mathematics, zero is not nothing; it is a number, which can be added, subtracted, multipled, and divided into but not by. It is the identity for addition and multiplication, and it is a placeholder in Hindu-Arabic Place-Value system. The empty set is a better contender for nothing, and the empty set might actually be empty, and contain nothing, but in creating a set containing nothing, we have created something. This might seem a play on words, but one of the ways that the natural numbers can be constructed is as follows:

Start with the empty set - {}; the cardinal number of this is zero. It has no members Now construct the set - { {} } (i.e. the set containing the empty set); the cardinal number of this set is 1; it has one member. Follow this up by constructing the set { {}, { {} } }; i.e the set containing the first two sets above, the empty set, and the set containing the empty set. Thsi has cardinal number three, because it has three members. ... and so on. In other words, we construct mathematics out of , well, quite literally, nothing.

Let your mind go blank. Think of Nothing. How can you? When you think of nothing, you need somewhere yo put it, it will have a form, a shape, even if it appears shape-less. It is something, even if it is a hole in something else. This may sound facetious, but it is inconceivable to think of nothing. As a concept it is one of those things that Douglas Adams (see above) calls recipreversexclusions - something which is defined as being anything other than itself.

We should take seriously the notion, not just that 'nature abhors a vaccuum', but that it is logically and physically impossible for nothing to exist. The phrase 'there exists nothing' is a contradiction in terms. Existence and Nothing are logically a pair of mutually exclusive ideas; 'nothing' might just turn out to be a self-contradictory notion.--[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:06, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing brings itself from non-being into being; therefore by something- St. Thomas Aquinas --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:09, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because nothing is not a thing[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 22:52, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Why? It's a meaningless question. It's not possible to ask "Why is there nothing?" because the question itself constitutes "something." Therefore, to ask "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is akin to simply asking "Why is there something?" With me so far?

Replace "something" with your favorite noun and the question remains the same. "Why is there blue? Why is there cold?" Why do you people insist on creating questions where there are none? --[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:03, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

"''...that is just as unsatisfying as saying that god created everything. A more serious, but not less unsatisfying answer might actually be that it is impossible for 'nothing' to exist. All attempts to define or describe nothing lead us to something.''". On the contrary, I find the idea that attempts to define/describe nothing fail as unconvincing, partly because the problem is likely that not being familiar with "nothing" simply makes it difficult for us to comprehend. But as far as definitions go, how about "nothing is the absence of anything". Furthermore, saying that "God created everything" is unsatisfying is merely an assertion that is not self-evident. I find it quite satisfying. What is so unsatisfying about it? I mean, if "unsatisfying" is the strongest argument that can be raised against God creating, there is no argument. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:55, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I believe that the relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death. One's purpose is to create the other. There is such a thing as a healthy forest fire. It destroys dead and decaying trees-causing death-but out of the ashes healthy new saplings spring up, and continue the life of the forest.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

The relationship between something and nothing is the same as the relationship between life and death, but not because one's purpose is to create the other. Rather, it's because the latter is the absence of the former. It is not the purpose of death or nothing to create life (that's impossible) and it's not the purpose of life or something to create death or nothing. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:43, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

If there was nothing, we simply wouldn't be here to observe it. -- [[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]] 18:34, 30 September 2009

==Why Not?==
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:42, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:I got a better question, "Does zero exist?" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::Conceptually, but not in any concrete sense. It reminds me of some lines from ''Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead'':
::"Death isn't like hopping on a boat. It's nothing; it's a state of not-being."
::"I've frequently not been on boats-"
::"No, what you've been is ''not'' on boats..."
[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:06, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== Yes ==

There is no concrete proof that there is something, everything here ''could'' not exist. We assume that there is something from the unproved axiom "I think, therefore I am." Axioms by definition cannot be proven true or false, they are just assumptions. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 15:53, 16 May 2008 (EDT)
: That appears illogical. "Nothing" is the absence of anything, and as we are here, we are, by definition, "something". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:40, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::But that is based on the assumption that you are observing 'something.' There is the offchance (which I do not believe), that there is nothing, and we do not exist. This is where the axiom comes in. We cannot prove the existence of the universe, we can only assume it does. It takes of stretch of the imagination to even consider it. --[[User:Capercorn]] [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] 13:40, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
::: If we didn't exist, how could we possibly be discussing this? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:29, 20 May 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

By addressing the state of "nothing" we are causing something so there will always be something rather than nothing. In the same way one can try to "clear your head" but this fails because in the act of clearing one's head one is filling it with the task of clearing the head/the mind. In this way we must always have something rather than nothing. Even in a vaccuum, the absence of everything is something. [[Bealecr]] 15:21, 30 April 2009

Lost (TV series)

2009-09-30T01:49:08Z

LincolnShuddered:

'''''Lost''''' is a popular television series made by the [[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]].

The title "Lost" reflects not only the main characters' enstrandment on an island, but that they are lost within their lives.

The series follows the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815, which crashes on an unidentified island in the Pacific Ocean. The group of strangers must learn to cooperate in order to survive the island's challenges, which are vastly more complicated than initially thought. Despite the standard "desert island" scenario, the plot involves much more than mere survival against the elements, with the castaways encountering several mysteries and ever-deepening conspiracies to deal with, as well as bizarre occurences and mysterious phenomena meeting them at every turn.

In the first three seasons, each episode typically centered around one character, with events on the island mixed with flashbacks to important parts of that person's life before the crash. Later in the series, however, this formula was altered in various ways that were appropriate to the changing mechanics of the storytelling.

''Lost'' began its first season on September 22, 2004, and is scheduled to end with its sixth season in May 2010. The announcement for the show's end date, including the number of remaining episodes and layout of the remaining seasons, was made in May 2007, close to the end of the show's third season. The show's creators had been urging the network to agree to this relatively rare arrangement for some time, and explaining this move, executive producer Damon Lindelof remarked that "We always envisioned 'Lost' as a show with a beginning, middle and end. By officially announcing exactly when that ending will be, the audience will now have the security of knowing that the story will play out as we've intended."<ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20070510030616/http://www.abcmedianet.com/assets/pr%5chtml/050707_01.html</ref>

''Lost'' makes unusual demands on its audience's ability to keep track of a long-term, detailed plot, and not surprisingly has gradually lost viewership, from 15.5 million in the first season to an average of 11 million in its fifth season, which ended on May 13, 2009.<ref>
*http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=062105_06
*http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=032409_05</ref> However, it has received excellent reviews since it began, and still at its lowest point has enjoyed an audience of over eight million viewers.<ref>http://darkufo.blogspot.com/2009/03/episode-510-hes-our-you-last-night.html</ref> Also noteworthy is that much in the way of Christian imagery and themes permeate the show's narrative. For example, one important character's name is "Christian Shepherd," and several characters exemplify the conflict between [[science]] and [[faith]]. Overall, the theme of [[good and evil|good vs. evil]] is predominant, with other Christian themes such as [[redemption]] and [[judgment]] playing major roles. One of the show's executive producers, Carlton Cuse, has often stated publically that he's a Christian whose faith informs his writing.<ref>
*A radio interview with Monsignor Jim Lisante http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podcasts/14182, See Podcast 035
*see also blog discussion and transcript at http://tonyrossi.blogspot.com/2008/01/lost-and-found.html</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External Links==
*[http://imdb.com/title/tt0411008/ The Internet Movie Database's ''Lost'' entry]
*[http://lostpedia.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page "Lostpedia," a complete wiki devoted to the show]

[[category:broadcasting]]

Oliver Cromwell

2009-09-30T01:39:37Z

LincolnShuddered: /* Destroying the power of the Irish Catholics */

[[Image:Oliver_Cromwell.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Oliver Cromwell by Sir Peter Lely c.1653]]

'''Oliver Cromwell''' (1599-1658) was an English soldier, statesman, and leader of the [[Puritans|Puritan]] revolution. He rose from the ranks of the middle gentry to become an outstanding soldier; his genius for organizing and inspiring the parliamentary armies, called the "[[New Model Army]]" and nicknamed "roundheads", was displayed at the battle of Marston Moor (1644). His admiring soldiers called him "Old Ironsides". Victory in the field allowed him to execute the king in 1649 and become a virtual dictator; after 1653 he ruled under the title "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland." He executed an aggressive and generally effective foreign policy. Cromwell did as much as any English ruler to shape the future of the land he governed, but his Commonwealth collapsed after his death and the royal family was restored in 1660.

An intensely religious man--almost a Puritan [[Moses]]--he fervently believed God was guiding his victories. However he was never identified with any one sect or position, and favoured religious tolerance, except twords Catholics. His many admirers called him "God's Englishman"

Cromwell is the most controversial figure in all of British history. Strongly held opinions stretch from those who see him as a regicidal dictator who trampled on glorious royal traditions or a religious fanatic and a genocidal murderer of the Irish Catholics, to those who celebrate a hero of liberty who helped make the nation great. Most historians now have a favourable view of Cromwell's achievements and character.
==Early Life==
Cromwell was born at Huntingdon in eastern England on April 25, 1599. His father, Robert Cromwell, and his mother, Elizabeth Steward, were typical English country gentlefolk. His father was a younger son of a family founded by Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540), a minister of [[Henry VIII]]; they had acquired considerable wealth by taking over monastery property during the [[Reformation]]. At the time of Oliver's birth his grandfather, Sir Henry Cromwell, was one of the two wealthiest landowners in Huntingdonshire, but his father was of modest means. Oliver was sent to the Huntingdon Grammar School and afterwards for one year only to Sidney Sussex College at [[Cambridge University]]. His father died when he was 18, and Oliver, the only surviving son, left the university to look after his mother and six sisters. He studied law for a time at the [[Inns of Court]] in London, and at 21 he married Elizabeth Bourchier, the daughter of a London leather merchant. He then returned to Huntingdon and settled down as a farmer.

==Politics ==
For 20 years Cromwell followed the stable and common career of a country gentleman and farmer, taking a prominent part in local affairs. In 1628, he was sponsored by the Montagu family and elected by Huntingdon to the last parliament summoned by King [[Charles I]] before the 11-year period (1629-1640) during which the latter tried to rule without one--the so-called "Eleven Years Tyranny." Cromwell's only speech in the Parliament of 1628-1629 was a fierce attack upon the High Church bishops. About 1628 he had a profound religious conversion that shaped his life; he became involved in local networks of Puritans, did some lay preaching, and considered a move to the Puritan colony of [[Connecticut]].

In 1631 after a humiliating political defeat in Huntingdon, and near bankrupt, he moved to St. Ives, and four years later to Ely. About this time he caught [[malaria]], which troubled him sporadically and shortened his life. An inheritance in 1636 brought him the adequate income of £300 a year.

==Puritan leader==

When King Charles I was forced by a shortage of funds to recall Parliament in 1640, Cromwell was returned to this Parliament as the M.P. for Cambridge. Known as the ''Short Parliament'', Charles again dissolved the house after only 3 weeks.

Cromwell became a local leader in the rapidly the expanding Puritan movement, which demanded a radical reform of the Church of England, and was opposed to the High Church tendencies favored by [[William Laud]], who became [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] in 1633. In 1640, Cromwell was returned to Parliament as member for Cambridge, the poorest man in the House of Commons by some distance; he wore a coarse suit, and plain linen shirt, its collar spotted with blood. Poor in dress but rich in speech, he was a man with a fearless and tactless tongue who denounced the tyranny of the bishops, and the pervasive idolatry of the established Church. He served on eighteen high-profile committees, especially those concerned with investigating religious innovation and abuse of ecclesiastical power. However, he was shunned by those leading the opposition to Charles I's government, but when it came for war he was packed off to raise troops in his home area, which he did with remarkable success.
==Causes of the Civil War (1630-1642)==
In 1630-42, when he governed without calling a parliament, King Charles I multiplied his enemies by imposing irritating financial exactions upon various classes of the community, using prerogative powers exercised by the king in centuries past. He demanded "ship money" from the towns, fined country gentlemen (including Cromwell) for refusing to accept knighthood, raised "forced loans," and increased customs duties. He did all this because he had no right to levy fresh taxes without the consent of Parliament; indeed, his broad aim was to secure the financial independence of the monarchy, and to fasten uniformity upon the Church. Thus the king antagonized the Puritan reformers as well as many of the country gentry and townspeople. In 1638 he became involved in a war against his Scottish subjects (he was hereditary king of Scotland as well as of England) when he tried to force upon them a prayer book similar to that in use in the English Church. They rebelled, and he was compelled to call a parliament at Westminster to ask for money to pursue the war. The accumulation of grievances against the king over eleven years made the leaders of the House of Commons aggressive and uncooperative. Cromwell at once showed himself to be a staunch Puritan, and as such gave steady support to the critics of church and government.

===The Long Parliament===
During the summer of 1640 King Charles was again defeated and humbled by the Scottish rebels. He appealed for help to a new parliament, which met in the autumn, with Cromwell again M.P. for Cambridge. This "Long Parliament," as it was to be called, repudiated the king's policies and obliged him to surrender many of his prerogative powers. It put to death one of the king's chief ministers, the Earl of Strafford. Cromwell and a majority of the Commons voted for a "Grand Remonstrance" against the government, and showed they did not trust the king. When the Irish rose up in rebellion in 1641, Parliament demanded the power to appoint all the king's ministers and principal army officers--an unprecedented step.

The king was eventually goaded to arrest five of the parliamentary leaders for treason. When this coup failed, King Charles left London to rally his supporters in the north of England. The Commons retorted by seizing "the power of the sword" and sending M.P.'s into their constituencies to gain control of local armories and militia. Cromwell himself went to Cambridge, took possession of the castle, arrested a captain of the militia, and prevented the colleges from sending their silver plate to the king, who was short of money. He raised a troop of 60 cavalry and searched for suspected royalists.

In the Long Parliament he made his name as an extreme Puritan who desired the complete abolition of the bishops; in eastern England as a whole he was recognized as a champion of the right of all church congregations to choose their own ministers, and their own religious forms.

==Cromwell as soldier==
The civil war began in August 1642. From that moment, though totally inexperienced as a soldier, the aggressive Cromwell, now in his early 40's, rose to the front as a military organizer and a Puritan leader. Cromwell, a good horseman, became a cavalry officer, raising his own Parliamentarian troop in Huntingdon. Within a year he rose from captain, to colonel, to lieutenant general of one of the largest regional armies in England. Cromwell fought together with his cavalry at the drawn battle of Edgehill (October 23, 1642). Afterwards, he doubled the size of his troop, and then converted it into a full regiment, becoming a colonel in February 1643.

With only 2,000 men he took charge of the defenses in the six parliamentarian heartland counties of East Anglia: Essex, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and Norfolk. The threat was an attack from the north, and he prepared for it, while suppressing local pockets of royalists; he also organized a supply system based on county committees he appointed. He called repeatedly on the Commons to raise the pay, improve the training, and lift the morale of the soldiers they enlisted. The king, meanwhile, had a capable force furnished largely by peers, landed gentry, and their outdoor staffs. By the autumn of 1643, two thirds of England and Wales were under the king's control; in spite of minor successes achieved at Grantham, Gainsborough, and Winceby, where Cromwell served his apprenticeship in the art of war, the prognosis was poor for Parliament's army. In desperation the Parliamentary leaders came to terms with the Scottish leaders, and a Scottish army entered England in 1644.

Cromwell became convinced that if he could produce a well-disciplined army he could defeat the Royalist forces under the king's nephew Prince Rupert, the Duke of Cumberland, and his [[Cavalier]]s. He also knew, as a result of his limited experience with the local county militia that pikemen, armed with sixteen-foot-long pikes, who stood their ground during a cavalry attack, could do a tremendous amount of damage.

Cromwell had also realised that the Prince's cavalry were poorly disciplined, and that after they charged the enemy they then went in pursuit of individual targets. At the first major battle of the civil war at [[Edgehill]], the majority of the Prince's cavalry did not return to the battlefield until over an hour after the initial charge. By this time the horses were so tired they were unable to mount another attack.

Cromwell instead trained his cavalry to stay together after a charge, and in this way his forces could repeatedly charge the Cavaliers. Cromwell's new cavalry took part in its first major battle at [[Marston Moor]] in [[Yorkshire]] in July 1644. The king's forces suffered a crushing defeat, and Cromwell's soldiers became known as the ''Ironsides'' because of the way they cut through the Cavaliers on the battlefield. Cromwell himself earned the nickname ''Old Ironsides''.

==New Model Army==
At the beginning of the Civil War, Parliament relied on soldiers recruited by large landowners who supported their cause. In February 1645, Parliament decided to form a new army of professional soldiers. This army of 22,000 men became known as the [[New Model Army]] and its commander-in-chief was General [[Thomas Fairfax]]. Cromwell was placed in charge of its cavalry.

Members of the New Model Army received proper military training and by the time they went into battle they were very well-disciplined. Previously, people only became officers because they came from powerful and wealthy families. In the New Model Army men were promoted when they showed themselves to be good soldiers. For the first time it became possible for plain men to become army officers. Cromwell thought it was very important that soldiers in the New Model Army believed strongly in what they were fighting for. Where possible he recruited men who, like him, held strong Puritan views and the New Model Army always went into battle singing psalms, convinced that God was on their side.

One strong faction among the regiments of the Army were known loosely as the "''Levellers''" "for they intend to sett all things straight, and rayse a parity and community in the kingdom".<ref> See [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Levellers]</ref> who subscribed to a belief in the "natural rights" of men that had been violated by the king's side. These natural rights, they asserted, came from the law of God expressed in the Bible.
==General Cromwell==
Puritans immediately recognized and appreciated his firm, fair and aggressive leadership. In a military career that only lasted a decade, he fought in more than thirty battles, and took part in more than forty sieges, without ever tasting defeat. The extraordinary self-discipline of his cavalry charges proved decisive in several of the greatest battles of the war, and earned Cromwell himself, and then his men, the title "Ironsides." He demanded that promotions and commands be given not to the well-born (who wore long flowing [[hair]]) but to the godly (who cut their hair short and were called '''"roundheads"'''). "I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else."<ref> Letter #16, Sept. 11, 1638</ref> The two Houses moved to reorganize their armies in the winter of 1644-45, and created a new major assault force, the New Model Army. Cromwell was, to the joy of the radicals, and the dismay of the more cautious Parliamentarians, given command of the cavalry, effectively the number two position in the Army.
===Battles of Marston Moor and Naseby===
Oliver Cromwell, now a lieutenant general, fought alongside the Scots and a northern army under Lord Fairfax and his son, Sir Thomas, at the Battle of Marston Moor in Yorkshire on July 2, 1644, where the king's army, led by Prince Rupert, was outnumbered and defeated.

Next year, fighting without the Scots, the New Model Army took part in its first major battle just outside the village of Naseby in Northamptonshire on 14 June 1645. The battle began when Prince Rupert led a charge against the left wing of the parliamentary cavalry which scattered and Rupert's men then gave chase. While this was going on Cromwell launched an attack on the left wing of the royalist cavalry. This was also successful and the royalists that survived the initial charge fled from the battlefield. Cromwell then ordered his cavalry to attack the now unprotected flanks of the infantry. Charles I was waiting with 1,200 men in reserve, but instead of ordering them forward to help his infantry he decided to retreat. Without support from the cavalry, the royalist infantry realised their task was impossible and surrendered. By the time Prince Rupert's cavalry returned to the battlefield the fighting had ended and his horses were exhausted after their long chase and not in a fit state to take on Cromwell's cavalry. The prince had no option but to ride off in search of the fleeing Charles I. The battle of Naseby was disastrous for the king, with 1,000 of his men killed, and another 4,500 of his most experienced men taken prisoner. The Parliamentary forces were also able to capture the Royalist baggage train that contained the king's complete stock of guns and ammunition. After Naseby, Charles was never able to raise another army strong enough to defeat the parliamentary army in a major battle.

Cromwell served under Sir Thomas Fairfax, the new Parliamentarian commander in chief. In both these battles Cromwell distinguished himself by his courage, enterprise, and leadership. Above all, his hold on eastern England had contributed to the reversal of the fortunes of war. When King Charles allowed his stronghold of Oxford to capitulate in June 1646, and himself fled to seek the mercy of the Scottish army, Cromwell had gained a reputation as the outstanding general of the first civil war. Although he had publicly criticized some of the aristocratic parliamentary commanders for what he considered lethargy and incompetence, he had been a loyal lieutenant to his superior, Sir Thomas Fairfax.

==Second English Civil War==
In January 1647, Charles I fled to Scotland where he was captured and handed over to the New Model Army. Charles was imprisoned in [[Hampton Court]], but in November 1647 he escaped and managed to rally support to raise another army. This time he was able to persuade the Scots to fight on his side. However, in August 1648 Cromwell's New Model Army defeated the Scots army (the "Engagers") at Preston, where Cromwell took sole command for the first time over an army of 9,000, which won a brilliant victory against the 18,000 strong Scots force. Once again King Charles was taken prisoner.

==Parliament versus Army: Second Civil War (1648)==
During the first civil war Cromwell retained his seat in the House of Commons, and appeared there whenever he could. In 1644 he had taken a leading part in promoting a "self-denying ordinance", whereby those members of parliament who had held commissions in the armed forces had relinquished them in order to make way for new blood, thereby paving the way for the appointment of the nonpolitical Fairfax. Cromwell himself had been ready to lay down his command, but Fairfax persuaded him to take command at the battle of Naseby in 1645.

Cromwell was conscious of his gifts, but, as always in his life, attributed his victories to Almighty God. It was indeed his independent-minded, highly personal Puritan religion (to which he had been "converted" as a young married man) that had brought him into the war against the king, and had sustained him in every battle. When the alliance was made with the Scots, he had insisted that this must not be at the price of liberty of conscience for himself and his fellow Independents or "sectarians." However, he was at first content to leave to the civilian leaders in Parliament, most of whom were Presbyterians, the future shape of the government.

However, the House of Commons (from which the Royalists had withdrawn at the outset of war) and the House of Lords, who were a mere handful, now showed themselves anxious to impose a rigid Presbyterian organization upon the English Church, and to dismiss Fairfax' soldiers, most of whom were Independents, without adequate compensation for their services. At first Cromwell, as an M.P. and a figure of immense influence in the army, tried to act as a mediator between Parliament and the soldiers. Eventually, he was driven to make a choice, and threw in his lot with the army. He also tried hard to come to terms with the king, whom the Scots had handed over as a prisoner to the English Parliament before their army went home. Cromwell was not opposed to a Presbyterian form of state church, but he insisted that the Puritan sects or Independents should be tolerated outside it. In negotiating a postwar settlement both with Parliament, and with the king, on behalf of the army, that was always the great point on which he would not yield. At the same time Cromwell acted as a conciliator within the army, trying to persuade those extremists who wanted to set up a democratic republic that the time was not ripe for so revolutionary a change. His idea was to have a constitutional monarchy, a middle-class parliament, and a tolerant church. But he reckoned without the king, who took advantage of the disputes among his enemies to escape to an island, thence to incite the Royalists both in England and in Scotland to a fresh civil war, which broke out early in 1648.

==Second Civil War and Execution of Charles I==
Parliament and its army now more or less closed ranks. While Sir Thomas Fairfax dealt with Royalist risings in southeast England, Cromwell first suppressed a rebellion in Wales, and then marched north to meet the Scots. He won a series of decisive victories over the larger Scottish army, in Lancashire (August 1648), marking his first major success as an independent commander. The temper of the army had been set aflame by the king's revival of war, and the Royalists' breach of faith. While the Presbyterians in Parliament still hoped to reach agreement with Charles I, Cromwell's son-in-law [[Henry Ireton]] led a movement to punish the king and overthrow the old monarchy. In December 1648, the southern army "purged" the Commons of its Presbyterian members and demanded the trial of the king.

During the autumn Cromwell had followed his retreating enemy into Scotland, and restored order in Edinburgh, but he had lingered in the north until General Fairfax recalled him to London; he was hesitating over his political attitude. When he got back to the capital he approved of the purge, and took charge of the arrangements to bring Charles I to his trial under guard. Fairfax having washed his hands of all political matters, Cromwell accepted the responsibilities of leadership. He realized that the trial of the king would result in the latter's death, as a result of all the blood shed in the civil wars. Once he made up his mind, Cromwell acted ruthlessly, and it was largely by his personal efforts that the trial by what was in effect a revolutionary tribunal was pressed through, and the king was condemned to death.

On January 30, 1649, King Charles I was beheaded on a block in view of a silent crowd gathered in front of the Banquet Hall of Whitehall Palace; the king's noble death proved a rallying point for his supporters. After the execution of Charles I, England became a republic; Cromwell was appointed a member of the Council of State, and was its first chairman.

==Ireland==
Meanwhile the Royalists had gained control of most of Ireland, which they hoped to use as a base for an invasion of England. Cromwell decided to eliminate the threat by invading. After occupying Dublin in August, 1649, he led his army north and laid siege to [[Drogheda]].
===Drogheda===
When Drogheda fell to the siege in September 1649, Cromwell's troops massacred nearly 3,500 people. Although this figure comprised around 2,700 royalist soldiers and all the men in the town bearing arms, a concerted propaganda campaign followed which ensured Cromwell was seen as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the national consciousness of Ireland. As recently as the 20th century Irish novelist [[James Joyce]] wrote in his novel ''[[Ulysses]]'': "''What about sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women and children of Drogheda to the sword with the bible text "God is love" pasted round the mouth of his cannon?''".

On September 10-11 his army stormed the town, and killed most of the surviving garrison, which had refused to surrender. Cromwell said that the killing at Drogheda had the goal of encouraging other garrisons to surrender and not fight to the death; indeed it induced some other Irish garrisons to surrender, such as Trim, Ross and Dundalk. In October the garrison at Wexford repulsed Cromwell's army but was overcome; here again no quarter was given once the garrison refused to surrender, and this time the town was plundered. By the end of the year most of the eastern coast of Ireland was in Cromwell's hands. Early in 1650 he marched his army inland, ravaging the land and slaughtering the populace regardless of age or sex.
===Destroying the power of the Irish Catholics===
In 1651 Cromwell's government adopted a policy of destroying the power of those Irish Catholics who did not become Protestants; they were seen as less than human - dangerous barbarians and potential allies of the Royalists. All Irish landholdings (except in Connacht, which was deemed to be too "barren") were confiscated, and most of the populace was driven into the wilds of Connacht to die of starvation and pestilence. The proportion of land owned by Catholics fell from 59% in 1641 to 20% in the span of two decades. The goal was to resettle the island with, in his view, more "Godly" Protestants, who were given the best lands, and given near complete control over the remaining Catholics. As a result, the Irish Catholics have hated Cromwell with a passion that continues to this day.

==Conquest of Scotland==
In May 1650 Cromwell learned that [[Charles II]] had landed in Scotland and been proclaimed king by the Scots Covenanter regime so he returned to England to put down this latest threat, leaving Henry Ireton and Edmund Ludlow in command of the English forces in Ireland. The last Catholic held town, [[Galway]], surrendered in April 1652 and the last Irish troops surrendered in April 1653.

In an effort to avert war, Cromwell appealed to the General Assembly of the [[Church of Scotland]] to break their alliance with the royalists, famously urging them: ''"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."'' The Scot's rejected peace, and Cromwell invaded in August, 1650.

The English republic was threatened because Scotland's Presbyterian [[Covenanters]] had come to terms with Charles I's eldest son, [[Charles II]]. General Fairfax resigned rather than invade Scotland, and Cromwell took his place as commander in chief. He crossed the Scottish border on July 22, 1650, but at first made little headway against the defensive strategy of the Scottish commander. As in Ireland his campaign was supported by English sea power, the importance of which he appreciated. Although cut off from his English base, Cromwell won a great victory at Dunbar (30 miles [48 km] east of Edinburgh) on Sept. 3, 1650. Cromwell destroyed the main Covenanter army at the battle of Dunbar on September 3 1650. Leaving 4,000 Scottish soldiers dead and 10,000 taken prisoner, he quickly moved to capture the Scottish capital of Edinburgh.

During the winter 1650-51 Cromwell was taken ill and the army bogged down. But the following summer he outmaneuvered the Scots who, rather than allow themselves to have their lines of communication cut, followed the young King Charles II into England. Charles II and the remaining Covenanters was making a final desperate bid to invade England and capture London while Cromwell was still in Scotland. Cromwell rapidly pursued them south, however, and caught them at Worcester in September. In the ensuing battle Cromwell's forces wiped out the last major Scottish royalist army. Scotland was henceforward ruled from England under military occupation. Cromwell was welcomed as a hero on his return to London.
==Creating the Protectorate==
During the next two years the quarrel between Parliament and army, which had begun in 1647, was revived. The army was now radically inclined, seeking reform in Church and State. Cromwell became the spokesman of the army's point of view, although once again he tried first to act as conciliator between the two sides. The soldiers asked that the remnant of the original "Long Parliament" of 1640, now known as "the Rump," should be dissolved and a fresh reformist one-chamber Parliament be elected. Other sections of the community had tired of the long naval war then in progress against the Dutch Republic (1652-1654), in which Cromwell's army had no part, and indeed resented as a fratricidal war against fellow Protestants.

When negotiations for the election of a new Parliament broke down, Cromwell forcibly dissolved the Rump on April 20, 1653. By 1653 Cromwell and his Army effectively controlled all Britain. Cromwell did not himself seize political power; he decided instead to invite the Independent churches to nominate members of a Puritan Assembly, which would exercise both executive and legislative powers. In spring 1653 came his best chance to become an all-powerful dictator, and he turned away; with a standing army of under 15,000 men at a time when the population of England and Wales was approximately 5.5 million, the creation of a military dictatorship was a practical impossibility. There were few political prisoners, and only those who actually participated in rebellion were executed; torture was not used.

==Named Lord Protector==
The Nominated Parliament set about reform with enthusiasm, but was soon split between a radical and a conservative wing. When the conservative wing gained control in December 1653 after a tussle, the majority resigned their powers into Cromwell's hands. This coup d'état was engineered by Cromwell's second-in-command, John Lambert; and it was Lambert who drew up an '''"Instrument of Government"''' as a new constitution for the English commonwealth. This constitution provided for an elected parliament, a nominated council of state, and a lord protector as chief executive officer. Cromwell was offered and accepted the post of Lord Protector, not as a dictator but as the first servant of the Commonwealth of England, united with conquered Scotland and Ireland. There was widespread [[republicanism]] and a sense that the old monarchical system was dead.

Some officers wanted Cromwell to become a hereditary king but he refused and instead took the title Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Cromwell did made the decisions--he was a dictator in that sense--but he rarely broke the law. He preferred persuasion to coercion and did not try to impose an authoritarian regime that tolerated only one set of ideas. His experiment with major-generals taking control of England has aspects of a military dictatorship, but the experiment lasted less than 15 months in 1655-57, and the generals did not in fact loom large in deciding local policies. So it verged upon, but did not reach, military rule. When offered the crown, Cromwell said no. He did set up his son as his successor, but made no serious preparations and the son was soon ousted.<ref> Austin Woolrych, (1990)</ref>

==Lord Protector==
For the remaining five years of his life Cromwell governed as lord protector, sometimes with the help of a parliament, sometimes without it. But like the kings of old, he was always dependent upon the advice and support of his Council of State, or later, [[Privy Council]]. At its opening session the Protectorate Parliament (September 1654-January 1655) was more concerned about revising the new constitution than about passing legislation. Differences between protector and parliament encouraged the Royalists. In January 1655, Cromwell dissolved this parliament.

===Rule of the Major Generals===
A rebellion broke out in March 1655, and although it was easily suppressed, the country was divided into ten districts, each under a major general. That experiment lasted barely a year.

Cromwell imposed martial law in England and the country was divided into eleven districts, each district being overseen by a Major-General. The responsibilities of these Major-Generals included maintaining order, collecting taxes, granting poor relief and imposing Puritan morality. In some districts bear-baiting, cock-fighting, horse-racing and wrestling were banned. Betting and gambling were also forbidden. Large numbers of [[Public house|pubs]] were closed and fines were imposed on people heard swearing. In some districts, the Major-Generals also closed the theatres.

===Constitutional experiments===
Meanwhile England was involved in a fresh war, this time waged against the Spanish Empire; Cromwell, needing money, called a new Parliament to vote him supplies. It met in fall 1656; Cromwell argued on behalf of his policies, but met with considerable opposition, especially from out-and-out republicans who objected to the whole idea of the Protectorate. The new House was therefore in effect "purged" of 160 members, many of whom refused to take an oath to uphold the structure of the Protectorate. The remaining members, on the whole, cooperated with Cromwell and his Council of State. But they were opposed to the system of local government through the major generals. Rather than sustain military rule, a group of lawyers and civilians proposed to create a constitutional monarchy and a Puritan Church, with Cromwell as king.

Cromwell was tempted by the offer of a crown, but eventually, largely because of the opposition of his old friends and supporters in the army, he refused it. Nevertheless a new constitution was promulgated, providing for a revived House of Lords; a Lower House, to which all except known royalists were to be admitted; a Privy Council, replacing the Council of State; and certain restrictions on the powers of the lord protector and on freedom of religion. This constitution, originally called "the Humble Petition and Advice", came into effect in June 1657. A House of Lords was nominated, but the second Protectorate House of Commons, reinforced by the excluded members and deprived of Cromwell's friends whom he had promoted to the upper House, met in January 1658, to be the scene of an immediate attack launched upon the Protector by the republicans, and aiming to tear the new constitution to pieces.

Cromwell was at last angered beyond restraint. Convinced that a fresh squabble in Parliament would be followed by a Royalist invasion, he promptly dissolved Parliament on Feb. 4, 1658.
===Foreign affairs===
For the last few months of his life Cromwell governed without a parliament. The war (with France) against Spain was virtually won, thanks to naval victories. A naval expedition to the West Indies resulted in the capture of [[Jamaica]] from Spain (May 1655), and Cromwell tried to convert it into a flourishing British colony.<ref> James Robertson, "Cromwell and the Conquest of Jamaica." ''History Today'' 2005 55(5): 15-22. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref> In June 1658 he also obtained the port of [[Dunkirk]] as payment for the French alliance. After the peace with Holland in 1654, commerce had expanded.

Cromwell in 1654-55 launched a vastly ambitious "Western Design", with conquest of key Spanish territories in the West Indies; it failed badly because of defeats, disease and [[guerrilla]] resistance. Cromwell despaired that God had turned against him, while public reactions focused on the failure of English character and masculinity, revealing the ideological structures that underpinned both imperial expansion and the English revolution during the 1650s. Contemporary accounts dwelt on the disastrous campaign to control Jamaica, contrasting the supposedly cowardly conduct of General Robert Venables in Jamaica with the heroism of Major General James Heane in Hispaniola, suggesting that Venables's pusillanimity reflected a general failure of the British troops to live up to the ideal of godly valor and English superiority, associated in the public mind with the New Model Army. The Western Design debacle was a crisis for Cromwell's protectorate, straining the notion that God favored Puritan England, but the vision of Heane's martial virtues ultimately provided a model that guided the future success of the British Empire.<ref> Jamaica was permanently captured, at great cost. James Robertson, "Cromwell and the Conquest of Jamaica," ''History Today'' 55, No. 5 (May 2005) pp 15-22; Carla Gardina Pestana, "English Character and the Fiasco of the Western Design." ''Early American Studies'' 2005 3(1): 1-31. Issn: 1543-4273 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

===Toleration===
Cromwell fought hard against the more bigoted Puritans to maintain genuine freedom for the Christian religion, permitting even Episcopalians and Roman Catholics to worship in private houses. He appointed good judges, and pressed his legal advisers to reform the law and make it less expensive. He promoted education; for a time he was chancellor of Oxford University, and helped to found a college at Durham. The regime's religious policies fell significantly short of comprehensive toleration, though; rather, Cromwell offered liberty of conscience to a broad range of independent sects, whose members he sought to draw together in a united 'godly party'. Anglicans, Catholics and some of the more radical Protestant groups were excluded from the embrace of official toleration.<ref> See Blair Worden, "Toleration and the Cromwellian Protectorate" in W.J. Sheils, ed., "Persecution and Toleration Studies" in ''Studies Church History,''(1984) v.21</ref>

===Levellers===
Former members of the Levellers, an extreme anti-elitist group, grew disillusioned with the dictatorial policies of Cromwell. In 1655 Edward Sexby, John Wildman and Richard Overton were involved in fomenting a plot to overthrow the government, but the conspiracy was discovered and the plotters fled to the [[Netherlands]]. In May 1657 Edward Sexby published (under the pseudonym William Allen) ''Killing No Murder'', a political pamphlet that argued the justification of an assassination of Cromwell. The following month he arrived in England to carry out the assassination, but was arrested and imprisoned.
===Death and succession===
Cromwell's strong personality and the backing of the army held the Commonwealth together and preserved internal peace; he had to contend with republican plotters as well as discontented Royalists and foreign enemies.

By 1658 the government's debt stood at £1.5 million, largely because of the heavy cost of the armed forces, which the government proved unable to reduce in size. The regime's military commitments were taking it to the verge of bankruptcy, just when it seemed to be devising a feasible civilian basis for its rule.

In 1658 Cromwell announced that he wanted his son, Richard Cromwell, to replace him as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. The English army was unhappy with this decision. While they respected Oliver as a skillful military commander, Richard was just a country farmer.

Worn out, Oliver Cromwell died in London of malaria on September 3, 1658. On his deathbed he named his ineffective son Richard Cromwell (1626-1712) his successor. Richard lasted only 8 months, to be followed in power by the head of the army, [[George Monck]]; he lasted for less than a year, whereupon Parliament restored the monarchy, under [[Charles II]].

==Image and reputation==
At the Restoration in 1660, Cromwell's body was disinterred from the tomb of kings in [[Westminster Abbey]] and was hung from the gallows at Tyburn.

Blair Warden, a leading historian, reports, "From his century to ours, Oliver Cromwell has been the most controversial figure of English history."<ref>Blair Warden, "The English Reputations of Oliver Cromwell, 1660-1900" in William Lamont, ed. [http://books.google.com/books?id=fi4SmvdoUfoC&pg=PA35&dq=%22From+his+century+to+ours,+Oliver+Cromwell%22&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&sig=Zjm1_A4NGCzCyrl8RpbIB-47Dug ''Historical Controversies And Historians'' (1998) p. 35]</ref> First, Cromwell is well known and highly thought of; recent BBC polls show the public considers him one of the ten greatest Britons. Second, his importance and influence is beyond doubt, as is his stature as an outstanding soldier and diplomat. The main facts of his career are not in dispute, only the moral evaluation of those facts.<ref>Compare the controversies over King [[Richard III]], who was a minor player as king for less than two years and whose facts are in dispute.</ref> Third, the range and intensity of opinion is extreme, from those who laud him as a champion of liberty and republicanism who uplifted Britain's stature in the world, to those who to this date hate him as a regicide and murderer of so many Irish Catholics. The debate ranges from commoners to kings, and historians have been deeply involved. In the 1930s and 1940s most scholars saw him as a dangerous dictator, along the lines of Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. In recent decades nearly all the scholars have been favorable.

During his lifetime, some tracts painted him as a hypocrite motivated by power — for example, ''The Machiavilian Cromwell'' and ''The Juglers Discovered'', both part of an attack on Cromwell by the [[Levellers]] after 1647, present him as a Machiavellian figure. After his death and public disgrace there were many denunciations and a few positive portrayals, such as John Spittlehouse's ''A Warning Piece Discharged'' which compared him to Moses, rescuing the English by taking them safely through the Red Sea of the civil wars.<ref>John Morrill, "Cromwell and his contemporaries", in Morrill, (1990) pp. 263–4, 271-2 </ref> The great royalist historian Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, in his ''History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England'' (1667) declared that Cromwell "will be looked upon by posterity as a brave bad man". Clarendon argued that Cromwell's rise to power had been helped not only by his great spirit and energy, but also by his ruthlessness. The aristocracy was especially hostile to Cromwell, in large part because of his strong appeal to the common yeoman.

In the early 18th century, Cromwell’s image began to be adopted and reshaped by the [[Whig Party|Whigs]], an out-party opposing the Tories around the Hanoverian kings. They stressed Cromwell as [[Republicanism|republican]], a theme often adopted by American historians. <ref>Blair Worden, ''Roundhead Reputations: The English Civil Wars and the Passions of Posterity'' (2001). pp.53–59.</ref>

During the early 19th century, Cromwell's image was glorified by Romantic artists and poets. French author Victor Hugo's 1827 play ''Cromwell'' was representative of the French romantic movement, showing Cromwell as a ruthless yet dynamic Romantic hero. The major breakthrough came at the hands of a leading Romantic historian, [[Thomas Carlyle]] who in the 1840s saw Cromwell as the hero in a battle between good and evil. Carlyle used Cromwell as a model for restoring morality to a Victorian era that otherwise was prone to timidity, meaningless rhetoric, and moral compromise. The growth of Nonconformity in the nineteenth century encouraged an appreciation of Cromwell's Puritanism.

By the late 19th century, Carlyle’s portrayal of Cromwell, stressing the centrality of puritan morality and earnestness, had become assimilated into mainstream [[historiography]]. Britain's outstanding research scholar on the era, [[Samuel Rawson Gardiner]], concluded that "the man — it is ever so with the noblest — was greater than his work". <ref>Gardiner, ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1901) p. 315.</ref> Gardiner demonstrated Cromwell’s dynamic and mercurial character, and his role in ridding England of obsolete absolutism, while downplaying Cromwell’s intense religiosity.<ref>Worden, ''Roundhead Reputations'' (2001) pp. 256–260.</ref> Gardner showed Cromwell’s aggressive foreign policy was a foretaste Victorian imperial expansion, with Gardiner stressing his “constancy of effort to make England great by land and sea”.<ref>Gardiner, ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1901) p. 318.</ref>

Royals dislike regicides, so King [[George V]] vetoed Churchill's proposal in 1915 to name a battleship "The Cromwell"; but King [[George VI]] made no objection to the naming of a class of tanks that helped to win World War II after Old Ironsides. In the mid-20th century, Cromwell's reputation was often shaped by the rise of dictators like Mussolini and Hitler. In the 1930s Wilbur Cortez Abott, a Harvard professor, compiled and edited a multi-volume collection of Cromwell's letters and speeches, and concluded Cromwell had fascist tendencies. However, subsequent historians such as John Morrill have criticised both Abbott's interpretation of Cromwell and his editorial approach.<ref>John Morrill, "Textualising and Contextualising Cromwell", in ''Historical Journal'' (1990). v33#3, pp. 629-639.</ref>

Cromwell's reputation is now in the ascendant. More than twenty biographies by academic historians have been published in the past fifty years; all but one have been laudatory. They praise his integrity, his reliance upon his God, his brilliance as a soldier, his restless energy as head of state. There are varying estimates of the long-term effects of his role in the British Revolutions; but no recent biographer doubts that he was a man to be admired.<ref> Morrill (2003)</ref>

Recent scholars have emphasized Cromwell’s religiosity and downplayed his authoritarian style. Austin Woolrych explored the issue of "dictatorship" in depth, arguing that Cromwell was subject to two conflicting forces: his obligation to the army and his desire to achieve a lasting settlement, by winning back the confidence of the political nation as a whole. Woolrych argued that the dictatorial elements of Cromwell's rule stemmed not so much from its military origins or the participation of army officers in civil government, as from his constant commitment to the interest of the people of God, and his conviction that suppressing vice and encouraging virtue constituted the chief purpose of government.<ref>Austin Woolrych, "The Cromwellian Protectorate: a Military Dictatorship?" in ''History'' (1990) 75(244): 207-231</ref>

Historians such as John Morrill, Blair Worden and J.C. Davis have explored Cromwell's religious rhetoric, showing his speeches are suffused with biblical references, and arguing that his radical actions were driven by his zeal for godly reformation.<ref>Morrill "Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658)", in ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,''(2004). [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6765]; Blair Worden, "Oliver Cromwell and the sin of Achan". In Beales, D. and Best, G., ''History, Society and the Churches'' (1985); J.C. Davis, "Cromwell’s religion", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990). </ref>
==Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Ashley, Maurice. ''The Greatness of Oliver Cromwell'' (1958). 382pp, a standard scholarly biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3806780 online edition]
* Bennett, Martyn. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (2006), ISBN 0-415-31922-6. [http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Cromwell-Routledge-Historical-Biographies/dp/0415319226/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212181942&sr=1-22 excerpt and text search]
* Coward, Barry ''Cromwell'' (1991), a standard scholarly biography
* Clifford, Alan. ''Oliver Cromwell: the lessons and legacy of the Protectorate'' (1999), ISBN 0-9526716-2-X. praises his religiousity
* Davis, J. C. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (2001), shows Cromwell's remarkable skill at building complex networks of supporters, including coreligionists, politicians and soldiers. ISBN 0-340-73118-4
* Drinkwater John. ''Oliver Cromwell, a Character Study'' (2007) [http://books.google.com/books?id=62DlZJaCaWkC&pg=PA173&dq=intitle:Cromwell+date:2006-2008&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&sig=79z-gHLUUSA7Bpsg-3TCXGuMKQM excerpts and text search]
* Fraser, Antonia. ''Cromwell, Our Chief of Men,'' and ''Cromwell: the Lord Protector'' (1973), ISBN 0-7538-1331-9. Popular narrative. [http://www.amazon.com/Cromwell-Antonia-Fraser/dp/0802137660/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212181888&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1901). ISBN 1-4179-4961-9. Classic biography. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6034779 online edition]
* Gaunt, Peter. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1994), 144pp ISBN 0-631-18356-6. Short biography by scholar
* Hill, Christopher. ''God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell And The English Revolution'' (1970), ISBN 0-297-00043-8.
* Hirst, Derek. "The Lord Protector, 1653-8", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990), ISBN 0-582-01675-4
* Mason, James and Angela Leonard. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1998), ISBN 0-582-29734-6. 128pp succinct and effective
* Morrill, John. "Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658)", in ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,'' (2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6765 online to subscribers], the best place to start
* Morrill, John. "The Making of Oliver Cromwell", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990), ISBN 0-582-01675-4.
* Paul, Robert. ''The Lord Protector: Religion And Politics In The Life of Oliver Cromwell''. (1958) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3672431 online edition]
* Wedgwood, C.V. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1939), popular ISBN 0-7156-0656-5.
* Worden, Blair (1985). "Oliver Cromwell and the sin of Achan", in Beales, D. and Best, G. (eds.) ''History, Society and the Churches'', ISBN 0-521-02189-8.

===Political studies===
* Adamson, John . "Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990)
* Adamson, John. "The English Nobility and the Projected Settlement of 1647", in ''Historical Journal'', (1987) v30#3.
* Coward, Barry. ''The Cromwellian Protectorate'' (2002),
* Firth, C.H. ''Oliver Cromwell and the Rule of the Puritans in England'' (1900). [http://books.google.com/books?id=Y14NAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Oliver+intitle:Cromwell+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Rule+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Puritans&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online]
* Little, Patrick, ed. ''The Cromwellian Protectorate.'' (2007). 218 pp.
* Little, Patrick. "Offering the Crown to Cromwell." ''History Today'' 2007 57(2): 24-31. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Little, Patrick and David L. Smith, eds. ''Parliaments and Politics during the Cromwellian Protectorate'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Parliaments-Politics-Cromwellian-Protectorate-Cambridge/dp/0521838673/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300336&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Peacey, Jason. "Cromwellian England: a Propaganda State?" ''History'' 2006 91(2): 176-199. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]], says that in 1653-1659, profound changes were implemented in intelligence gathering, press censorship, and propaganda and in the deployment of resources and bureaucratic efficiency. By concentrating power in the hands of the secretary of state, Cromwell;s regime sought to exert its power in only some areas of print culture rather than to achieve a complete press monopoly.
* Smith, David, ed. ''Oliver Cromwell and the Interregnum'' (2003), ISBN 0-631-22725-3.
* Smith, David. ''Oliver Cromwell: Politics and Religion in the English Revolution 1640-1658'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Cromwell-Revolution-1640-1658-Cambridge/dp/0521388961/ref=sr_1_36?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212181977&sr=1-36 excerpt and text search]

===Military studies===
* Capp, Bernard. ''Cromwell's Navy:The fleet and the English Revolution, 1648-1660'' (1989)
* Durston, Christopher. "'Settling the Hearts and Quieting the Minds of All Good People': the Major-generals and the Puritan Minorities of Interregnum England", in ''History'' 2000 85(278): pp.247-267, ISSN 0018-2648 . Full text online at [[Ebsco]]
* Durston, Christopher. "The Fall of Cromwell's Major-Generals", in ''English Historical Review'' 1998 113(450): pp.18-37, ISSN 0013-8266
* Durston, Christopher. ''Cromwell's Major Generals: Godly Government during the English Revolution'' (2001)
* Firth, C.H. ''Cromwell's Army'' (1902), [http://books.google.com/books?id=hx4kAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Cromwell%27s+intitle:Army&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 online edition]
* Gillingham, J. ''Portrait Of A Soldier: Cromwell'' (1976), ISBN 0-297-77148-5.
* Kenyon, John, and Jane Ohlmeyer, eds. ''The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1638-1660'' 391 pp. (1998), thorough coverage by numerous scholars [http://www.questia.com/read/85742104?title=The%20Civil%20Wars%3a%20A%20Military%20History%20of%20England%2c%20Scotland%2c%20and%20Ireland%201638-1660 online edition]
* Kitson, Frank (2004). ''Old Ironsides: The Military Biography of Oliver Cromwell'' (2004), 239pp ISBN 0-297-84688-4.
* Marshall, Alan. ''Oliver Cromwell: Soldier: The Military Life of a Revolutionary at War'' (2004), ISBN 1-85753-343-7.
* Wheeler, J. Scott. ''Cromwell in Ireland'' (1999). the standard study
* Woolrych, Austin. "The Cromwellian Protectorate: a Military Dictatorship?" in ''History'' 1990 75(244): 207-231, ISSN 0018-2648 . Full text online at Ebsco.
* Woolrych, Austin. "Cromwell as a soldier", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990)
* Woolrych, Austin. ''Soldiers and Statesmen: the General Council of the Army and its Debates'' (1987), ISBN 0-19-822752-3.
* Young, Peter and Richard Holmes. ''The English Civil War,'' (2000) ISBN 1-84022-222-0. [http://www.amazon.com/English-Civil-Wordsworth-Military-Library/dp/1840222220/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300220&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

===Surveys of era===
* Coward, Barry. ''The Cromwellian Protectorate'' (2002) ISBN 0-7190-4317-4.
* Coward, Barry, ed. ''A Companion to Stuart Britain'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Britain-Blackwell-Companions-British/dp/0631218742/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300112&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Coward, Barry ''The Stuart Age: England, 1603-1714,'' (2003). ISBN 0-582-77251-6. Survey of political history of the era.
* Davies, Godfrey. ''The Early Stuarts, 1603-1660'' (1959). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=774608 online]. Political, religious, and diplomatic overview of the era.
* Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. ''History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649'' (4 vol 1898) [http://books.google.com/books?id=absqibcUmIQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:History+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Great+intitle:Civil+intitle:War+inauthor:Gardiner&lr=&as_brr=0 online edition from Google]
* Gaunt, Peter. ''The Cromwellian Gazetteer: An Illustrated Guide to Britain in the Civil War and Commonwealth'' (1998), 256pp; heavily illustrated; covers the scenes of military conflict such as battlefields, castles, fortified houses and churches, defended and besieged towns and cities
* Korr, Charles P. ''Cromwell and the New Model Foreign Policy: England's Policy toward France, 1649-1658'' (1975) ISBN 0-520-02281-5. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98872257 online]
* Macinnes, Allan. ''The British Revolution, 1629-1660'' (2005), 337pp ISBN 0-333-59750-8.
* Morrill, John. "Cromwell and his contemporaries". In Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990) ISBN 0-582-01675-4. [http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Cromwell-English-Revolution-Morrill/dp/0582016754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300435&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Trevor-Roper, Hugh. ''Oliver Cromwell and his Parliaments'', in his ''Religion, the Reformation and Social Change'' (1967). [http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=719&chapter=77057&layout=html&Itemid=27 online edition]
* Venning, Timothy. ''Cromwellian Foreign Policy'' (1995) ISBN 0-333-63388-1.
* Woolrych, Austin. ''Commonwealth to Protectorate'' (1982), ISBN 0-19-822659-4.
* Woolrych, Austin. ''Britain in Revolution 1625-1660'' (2002), ISBN 0-19-927268-6. [http://www.amazon.com/Britain-Revolution-1625-1660-Austin-Woolrych/dp/0199272689/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300255&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
===Historiography===
* Davis, J. C. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (2001). 243 pp; a biographical study that covers sources and historiography
* Goodlad, Graham. "The Cromwellian Protectorate." ''History Review,'' (March 2007,) Issue 57; online at [[EBSCO]]
* Lunger Knoppers, Laura. ''Constructing Cromwell. Ceremony, Portrait and Print, 1645-1661'' (2000), shows how people compared Cromwell to King Ahab, King David, Elijah, Gideon and Moses, as well as Brutus and Julius Caesar.
* Morrill, John. "Rewriting Cromwell: a Case of Deafening Silences." ''Canadian Journal of History'' 2003 38(3): 553-578. Issn: 0008-4107 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Worden, Blair. "Thomas Carlyle and Oliver Cromwell", in ''Proceedings Of The British Academy''(2000) 105: pp.131-170. ISSN 0068-1202 .
* Worden, Blair. ''Roundhead Reputations: the English Civil Wars and the passions of posterity'' (2001), 387pp; ISBN 0-14-100694-3.
* Warden, Blair. "The English Reputations of Oliver Cromwell, 1660-1900" in William Lamont, ed. '' ''Historical Controversies and Historians'' (1998) 35-48 [http://books.google.com/books?id=fi4SmvdoUfoC&pg=PA35&dq=%22 online]

===Primary sources===
* Abbott, W.C., ed. ''Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell,'' 4 vols. (1937-47).The largest reference for Cromwell's own words [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98993729 online edition].
** Morrill, John. "Textualizing and Contextualizing Cromwell", in ''Historical Journal'' 1990 33(3): pp.629-639. ISSN 0018-246X . [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2639734 in Jstor] Examines the Carlyle and Abbott editions.
* Carlyle, Thomas, ed. ''Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, with elucidations''. (1904 edition), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98993729 online edition]
* Haykin, Michael A. G. ed. ''To Honour God: The Spirituality of Oliver Cromwell'' (1999). ISBN 1-894400-03-8. Excerpts from Cromwell's religious writings.
* Roots, Ivan. ''Speeches of Oliver Cromwell'' (1989, ISBN 0-460-01254-1.

==External links==
*[http://www.olivercromwell.org/ The Oliver Cromwell Association]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/cromwell_oliver.shtml Cromwell at BBC History]
*[http://britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon48.html Cromwell at ''Britannia'' website]

====notes====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cromwell, Oliver}}

[[Category:Military Commanders]]
{{Nb_english_monarchs}}
[[Category:English Civil War]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:Puritans]]

Oliver Cromwell

2009-09-30T01:35:18Z

LincolnShuddered:

[[Image:Oliver_Cromwell.jpg|right|thumb|250px|Oliver Cromwell by Sir Peter Lely c.1653]]

'''Oliver Cromwell''' (1599-1658) was an English soldier, statesman, and leader of the [[Puritans|Puritan]] revolution. He rose from the ranks of the middle gentry to become an outstanding soldier; his genius for organizing and inspiring the parliamentary armies, called the "[[New Model Army]]" and nicknamed "roundheads", was displayed at the battle of Marston Moor (1644). His admiring soldiers called him "Old Ironsides". Victory in the field allowed him to execute the king in 1649 and become a virtual dictator; after 1653 he ruled under the title "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland." He executed an aggressive and generally effective foreign policy. Cromwell did as much as any English ruler to shape the future of the land he governed, but his Commonwealth collapsed after his death and the royal family was restored in 1660.

An intensely religious man--almost a Puritan [[Moses]]--he fervently believed God was guiding his victories. However he was never identified with any one sect or position, and favoured religious tolerance, except twords Catholics. His many admirers called him "God's Englishman"

Cromwell is the most controversial figure in all of British history. Strongly held opinions stretch from those who see him as a regicidal dictator who trampled on glorious royal traditions or a religious fanatic and a genocidal murderer of the Irish Catholics, to those who celebrate a hero of liberty who helped make the nation great. Most historians now have a favourable view of Cromwell's achievements and character.
==Early Life==
Cromwell was born at Huntingdon in eastern England on April 25, 1599. His father, Robert Cromwell, and his mother, Elizabeth Steward, were typical English country gentlefolk. His father was a younger son of a family founded by Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540), a minister of [[Henry VIII]]; they had acquired considerable wealth by taking over monastery property during the [[Reformation]]. At the time of Oliver's birth his grandfather, Sir Henry Cromwell, was one of the two wealthiest landowners in Huntingdonshire, but his father was of modest means. Oliver was sent to the Huntingdon Grammar School and afterwards for one year only to Sidney Sussex College at [[Cambridge University]]. His father died when he was 18, and Oliver, the only surviving son, left the university to look after his mother and six sisters. He studied law for a time at the [[Inns of Court]] in London, and at 21 he married Elizabeth Bourchier, the daughter of a London leather merchant. He then returned to Huntingdon and settled down as a farmer.

==Politics ==
For 20 years Cromwell followed the stable and common career of a country gentleman and farmer, taking a prominent part in local affairs. In 1628, he was sponsored by the Montagu family and elected by Huntingdon to the last parliament summoned by King [[Charles I]] before the 11-year period (1629-1640) during which the latter tried to rule without one--the so-called "Eleven Years Tyranny." Cromwell's only speech in the Parliament of 1628-1629 was a fierce attack upon the High Church bishops. About 1628 he had a profound religious conversion that shaped his life; he became involved in local networks of Puritans, did some lay preaching, and considered a move to the Puritan colony of [[Connecticut]].

In 1631 after a humiliating political defeat in Huntingdon, and near bankrupt, he moved to St. Ives, and four years later to Ely. About this time he caught [[malaria]], which troubled him sporadically and shortened his life. An inheritance in 1636 brought him the adequate income of £300 a year.

==Puritan leader==

When King Charles I was forced by a shortage of funds to recall Parliament in 1640, Cromwell was returned to this Parliament as the M.P. for Cambridge. Known as the ''Short Parliament'', Charles again dissolved the house after only 3 weeks.

Cromwell became a local leader in the rapidly the expanding Puritan movement, which demanded a radical reform of the Church of England, and was opposed to the High Church tendencies favored by [[William Laud]], who became [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] in 1633. In 1640, Cromwell was returned to Parliament as member for Cambridge, the poorest man in the House of Commons by some distance; he wore a coarse suit, and plain linen shirt, its collar spotted with blood. Poor in dress but rich in speech, he was a man with a fearless and tactless tongue who denounced the tyranny of the bishops, and the pervasive idolatry of the established Church. He served on eighteen high-profile committees, especially those concerned with investigating religious innovation and abuse of ecclesiastical power. However, he was shunned by those leading the opposition to Charles I's government, but when it came for war he was packed off to raise troops in his home area, which he did with remarkable success.
==Causes of the Civil War (1630-1642)==
In 1630-42, when he governed without calling a parliament, King Charles I multiplied his enemies by imposing irritating financial exactions upon various classes of the community, using prerogative powers exercised by the king in centuries past. He demanded "ship money" from the towns, fined country gentlemen (including Cromwell) for refusing to accept knighthood, raised "forced loans," and increased customs duties. He did all this because he had no right to levy fresh taxes without the consent of Parliament; indeed, his broad aim was to secure the financial independence of the monarchy, and to fasten uniformity upon the Church. Thus the king antagonized the Puritan reformers as well as many of the country gentry and townspeople. In 1638 he became involved in a war against his Scottish subjects (he was hereditary king of Scotland as well as of England) when he tried to force upon them a prayer book similar to that in use in the English Church. They rebelled, and he was compelled to call a parliament at Westminster to ask for money to pursue the war. The accumulation of grievances against the king over eleven years made the leaders of the House of Commons aggressive and uncooperative. Cromwell at once showed himself to be a staunch Puritan, and as such gave steady support to the critics of church and government.

===The Long Parliament===
During the summer of 1640 King Charles was again defeated and humbled by the Scottish rebels. He appealed for help to a new parliament, which met in the autumn, with Cromwell again M.P. for Cambridge. This "Long Parliament," as it was to be called, repudiated the king's policies and obliged him to surrender many of his prerogative powers. It put to death one of the king's chief ministers, the Earl of Strafford. Cromwell and a majority of the Commons voted for a "Grand Remonstrance" against the government, and showed they did not trust the king. When the Irish rose up in rebellion in 1641, Parliament demanded the power to appoint all the king's ministers and principal army officers--an unprecedented step.

The king was eventually goaded to arrest five of the parliamentary leaders for treason. When this coup failed, King Charles left London to rally his supporters in the north of England. The Commons retorted by seizing "the power of the sword" and sending M.P.'s into their constituencies to gain control of local armories and militia. Cromwell himself went to Cambridge, took possession of the castle, arrested a captain of the militia, and prevented the colleges from sending their silver plate to the king, who was short of money. He raised a troop of 60 cavalry and searched for suspected royalists.

In the Long Parliament he made his name as an extreme Puritan who desired the complete abolition of the bishops; in eastern England as a whole he was recognized as a champion of the right of all church congregations to choose their own ministers, and their own religious forms.

==Cromwell as soldier==
The civil war began in August 1642. From that moment, though totally inexperienced as a soldier, the aggressive Cromwell, now in his early 40's, rose to the front as a military organizer and a Puritan leader. Cromwell, a good horseman, became a cavalry officer, raising his own Parliamentarian troop in Huntingdon. Within a year he rose from captain, to colonel, to lieutenant general of one of the largest regional armies in England. Cromwell fought together with his cavalry at the drawn battle of Edgehill (October 23, 1642). Afterwards, he doubled the size of his troop, and then converted it into a full regiment, becoming a colonel in February 1643.

With only 2,000 men he took charge of the defenses in the six parliamentarian heartland counties of East Anglia: Essex, Hertfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and Norfolk. The threat was an attack from the north, and he prepared for it, while suppressing local pockets of royalists; he also organized a supply system based on county committees he appointed. He called repeatedly on the Commons to raise the pay, improve the training, and lift the morale of the soldiers they enlisted. The king, meanwhile, had a capable force furnished largely by peers, landed gentry, and their outdoor staffs. By the autumn of 1643, two thirds of England and Wales were under the king's control; in spite of minor successes achieved at Grantham, Gainsborough, and Winceby, where Cromwell served his apprenticeship in the art of war, the prognosis was poor for Parliament's army. In desperation the Parliamentary leaders came to terms with the Scottish leaders, and a Scottish army entered England in 1644.

Cromwell became convinced that if he could produce a well-disciplined army he could defeat the Royalist forces under the king's nephew Prince Rupert, the Duke of Cumberland, and his [[Cavalier]]s. He also knew, as a result of his limited experience with the local county militia that pikemen, armed with sixteen-foot-long pikes, who stood their ground during a cavalry attack, could do a tremendous amount of damage.

Cromwell had also realised that the Prince's cavalry were poorly disciplined, and that after they charged the enemy they then went in pursuit of individual targets. At the first major battle of the civil war at [[Edgehill]], the majority of the Prince's cavalry did not return to the battlefield until over an hour after the initial charge. By this time the horses were so tired they were unable to mount another attack.

Cromwell instead trained his cavalry to stay together after a charge, and in this way his forces could repeatedly charge the Cavaliers. Cromwell's new cavalry took part in its first major battle at [[Marston Moor]] in [[Yorkshire]] in July 1644. The king's forces suffered a crushing defeat, and Cromwell's soldiers became known as the ''Ironsides'' because of the way they cut through the Cavaliers on the battlefield. Cromwell himself earned the nickname ''Old Ironsides''.

==New Model Army==
At the beginning of the Civil War, Parliament relied on soldiers recruited by large landowners who supported their cause. In February 1645, Parliament decided to form a new army of professional soldiers. This army of 22,000 men became known as the [[New Model Army]] and its commander-in-chief was General [[Thomas Fairfax]]. Cromwell was placed in charge of its cavalry.

Members of the New Model Army received proper military training and by the time they went into battle they were very well-disciplined. Previously, people only became officers because they came from powerful and wealthy families. In the New Model Army men were promoted when they showed themselves to be good soldiers. For the first time it became possible for plain men to become army officers. Cromwell thought it was very important that soldiers in the New Model Army believed strongly in what they were fighting for. Where possible he recruited men who, like him, held strong Puritan views and the New Model Army always went into battle singing psalms, convinced that God was on their side.

One strong faction among the regiments of the Army were known loosely as the "''Levellers''" "for they intend to sett all things straight, and rayse a parity and community in the kingdom".<ref> See [http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Levellers]</ref> who subscribed to a belief in the "natural rights" of men that had been violated by the king's side. These natural rights, they asserted, came from the law of God expressed in the Bible.
==General Cromwell==
Puritans immediately recognized and appreciated his firm, fair and aggressive leadership. In a military career that only lasted a decade, he fought in more than thirty battles, and took part in more than forty sieges, without ever tasting defeat. The extraordinary self-discipline of his cavalry charges proved decisive in several of the greatest battles of the war, and earned Cromwell himself, and then his men, the title "Ironsides." He demanded that promotions and commands be given not to the well-born (who wore long flowing [[hair]]) but to the godly (who cut their hair short and were called '''"roundheads"'''). "I had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else."<ref> Letter #16, Sept. 11, 1638</ref> The two Houses moved to reorganize their armies in the winter of 1644-45, and created a new major assault force, the New Model Army. Cromwell was, to the joy of the radicals, and the dismay of the more cautious Parliamentarians, given command of the cavalry, effectively the number two position in the Army.
===Battles of Marston Moor and Naseby===
Oliver Cromwell, now a lieutenant general, fought alongside the Scots and a northern army under Lord Fairfax and his son, Sir Thomas, at the Battle of Marston Moor in Yorkshire on July 2, 1644, where the king's army, led by Prince Rupert, was outnumbered and defeated.

Next year, fighting without the Scots, the New Model Army took part in its first major battle just outside the village of Naseby in Northamptonshire on 14 June 1645. The battle began when Prince Rupert led a charge against the left wing of the parliamentary cavalry which scattered and Rupert's men then gave chase. While this was going on Cromwell launched an attack on the left wing of the royalist cavalry. This was also successful and the royalists that survived the initial charge fled from the battlefield. Cromwell then ordered his cavalry to attack the now unprotected flanks of the infantry. Charles I was waiting with 1,200 men in reserve, but instead of ordering them forward to help his infantry he decided to retreat. Without support from the cavalry, the royalist infantry realised their task was impossible and surrendered. By the time Prince Rupert's cavalry returned to the battlefield the fighting had ended and his horses were exhausted after their long chase and not in a fit state to take on Cromwell's cavalry. The prince had no option but to ride off in search of the fleeing Charles I. The battle of Naseby was disastrous for the king, with 1,000 of his men killed, and another 4,500 of his most experienced men taken prisoner. The Parliamentary forces were also able to capture the Royalist baggage train that contained the king's complete stock of guns and ammunition. After Naseby, Charles was never able to raise another army strong enough to defeat the parliamentary army in a major battle.

Cromwell served under Sir Thomas Fairfax, the new Parliamentarian commander in chief. In both these battles Cromwell distinguished himself by his courage, enterprise, and leadership. Above all, his hold on eastern England had contributed to the reversal of the fortunes of war. When King Charles allowed his stronghold of Oxford to capitulate in June 1646, and himself fled to seek the mercy of the Scottish army, Cromwell had gained a reputation as the outstanding general of the first civil war. Although he had publicly criticized some of the aristocratic parliamentary commanders for what he considered lethargy and incompetence, he had been a loyal lieutenant to his superior, Sir Thomas Fairfax.

==Second English Civil War==
In January 1647, Charles I fled to Scotland where he was captured and handed over to the New Model Army. Charles was imprisoned in [[Hampton Court]], but in November 1647 he escaped and managed to rally support to raise another army. This time he was able to persuade the Scots to fight on his side. However, in August 1648 Cromwell's New Model Army defeated the Scots army (the "Engagers") at Preston, where Cromwell took sole command for the first time over an army of 9,000, which won a brilliant victory against the 18,000 strong Scots force. Once again King Charles was taken prisoner.

==Parliament versus Army: Second Civil War (1648)==
During the first civil war Cromwell retained his seat in the House of Commons, and appeared there whenever he could. In 1644 he had taken a leading part in promoting a "self-denying ordinance", whereby those members of parliament who had held commissions in the armed forces had relinquished them in order to make way for new blood, thereby paving the way for the appointment of the nonpolitical Fairfax. Cromwell himself had been ready to lay down his command, but Fairfax persuaded him to take command at the battle of Naseby in 1645.

Cromwell was conscious of his gifts, but, as always in his life, attributed his victories to Almighty God. It was indeed his independent-minded, highly personal Puritan religion (to which he had been "converted" as a young married man) that had brought him into the war against the king, and had sustained him in every battle. When the alliance was made with the Scots, he had insisted that this must not be at the price of liberty of conscience for himself and his fellow Independents or "sectarians." However, he was at first content to leave to the civilian leaders in Parliament, most of whom were Presbyterians, the future shape of the government.

However, the House of Commons (from which the Royalists had withdrawn at the outset of war) and the House of Lords, who were a mere handful, now showed themselves anxious to impose a rigid Presbyterian organization upon the English Church, and to dismiss Fairfax' soldiers, most of whom were Independents, without adequate compensation for their services. At first Cromwell, as an M.P. and a figure of immense influence in the army, tried to act as a mediator between Parliament and the soldiers. Eventually, he was driven to make a choice, and threw in his lot with the army. He also tried hard to come to terms with the king, whom the Scots had handed over as a prisoner to the English Parliament before their army went home. Cromwell was not opposed to a Presbyterian form of state church, but he insisted that the Puritan sects or Independents should be tolerated outside it. In negotiating a postwar settlement both with Parliament, and with the king, on behalf of the army, that was always the great point on which he would not yield. At the same time Cromwell acted as a conciliator within the army, trying to persuade those extremists who wanted to set up a democratic republic that the time was not ripe for so revolutionary a change. His idea was to have a constitutional monarchy, a middle-class parliament, and a tolerant church. But he reckoned without the king, who took advantage of the disputes among his enemies to escape to an island, thence to incite the Royalists both in England and in Scotland to a fresh civil war, which broke out early in 1648.

==Second Civil War and Execution of Charles I==
Parliament and its army now more or less closed ranks. While Sir Thomas Fairfax dealt with Royalist risings in southeast England, Cromwell first suppressed a rebellion in Wales, and then marched north to meet the Scots. He won a series of decisive victories over the larger Scottish army, in Lancashire (August 1648), marking his first major success as an independent commander. The temper of the army had been set aflame by the king's revival of war, and the Royalists' breach of faith. While the Presbyterians in Parliament still hoped to reach agreement with Charles I, Cromwell's son-in-law [[Henry Ireton]] led a movement to punish the king and overthrow the old monarchy. In December 1648, the southern army "purged" the Commons of its Presbyterian members and demanded the trial of the king.

During the autumn Cromwell had followed his retreating enemy into Scotland, and restored order in Edinburgh, but he had lingered in the north until General Fairfax recalled him to London; he was hesitating over his political attitude. When he got back to the capital he approved of the purge, and took charge of the arrangements to bring Charles I to his trial under guard. Fairfax having washed his hands of all political matters, Cromwell accepted the responsibilities of leadership. He realized that the trial of the king would result in the latter's death, as a result of all the blood shed in the civil wars. Once he made up his mind, Cromwell acted ruthlessly, and it was largely by his personal efforts that the trial by what was in effect a revolutionary tribunal was pressed through, and the king was condemned to death.

On January 30, 1649, King Charles I was beheaded on a block in view of a silent crowd gathered in front of the Banquet Hall of Whitehall Palace; the king's noble death proved a rallying point for his supporters. After the execution of Charles I, England became a republic; Cromwell was appointed a member of the Council of State, and was its first chairman.

==Ireland==
Meanwhile the Royalists had gained control of most of Ireland, which they hoped to use as a base for an invasion of England. Cromwell decided to eliminate the threat by invading. After occupying Dublin in August, 1649, he led his army north and laid siege to [[Drogheda]].
===Drogheda===
When Drogheda fell to the siege in September 1649, Cromwell's troops massacred nearly 3,500 people. Although this figure comprised around 2,700 royalist soldiers and all the men in the town bearing arms, a concerted propaganda campaign followed which ensured Cromwell was seen as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the national consciousness of Ireland. As recently as the 20th century Irish novelist [[James Joyce]] wrote in his novel ''[[Ulysses]]'': "''What about sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women and children of Drogheda to the sword with the bible text "God is love" pasted round the mouth of his cannon?''".

On September 10-11 his army stormed the town, and killed most of the surviving garrison, which had refused to surrender. Cromwell said that the killing at Drogheda had the goal of encouraging other garrisons to surrender and not fight to the death; indeed it induced some other Irish garrisons to surrender, such as Trim, Ross and Dundalk. In October the garrison at Wexford repulsed Cromwell's army but was overcome; here again no quarter was given once the garrison refused to surrender, and this time the town was plundered. By the end of the year most of the eastern coast of Ireland was in Cromwell's hands. Early in 1650 he marched his army inland, ravaging the land and slaughtering the populace regardless of age or sex.
===Destroying the power of the Irish Catholics===
In 1651 Cromwell's government adopted a policy of destroying the power of those Irish Catholics who did not become Protestants; they were seen as dangerous barbarians and potential allies of the royalists. All Irish landholdings (except in barren Connacht) were confiscated, and most of the populace was driven into the wilds of Connacht to die of starvation and pestilence. The proportion of land owned by Catholics fell from 59% in 1641 to 20% two decades later. The goal was to resettle the island with, in his view, more "Godly" Protestants, who were given the best lands, and given near complete control over the remaining Catholics. As a result, the Irish Catholics have hated Cromwell with a passion that continues to this day.

==Conquest of Scotland==
In May 1650 Cromwell learned that [[Charles II]] had landed in Scotland and been proclaimed king by the Scots Covenanter regime so he returned to England to put down this latest threat, leaving Henry Ireton and Edmund Ludlow in command of the English forces in Ireland. The last Catholic held town, [[Galway]], surrendered in April 1652 and the last Irish troops surrendered in April 1653.

In an effort to avert war, Cromwell appealed to the General Assembly of the [[Church of Scotland]] to break their alliance with the royalists, famously urging them: ''"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."'' The Scot's rejected peace, and Cromwell invaded in August, 1650.

The English republic was threatened because Scotland's Presbyterian [[Covenanters]] had come to terms with Charles I's eldest son, [[Charles II]]. General Fairfax resigned rather than invade Scotland, and Cromwell took his place as commander in chief. He crossed the Scottish border on July 22, 1650, but at first made little headway against the defensive strategy of the Scottish commander. As in Ireland his campaign was supported by English sea power, the importance of which he appreciated. Although cut off from his English base, Cromwell won a great victory at Dunbar (30 miles [48 km] east of Edinburgh) on Sept. 3, 1650. Cromwell destroyed the main Covenanter army at the battle of Dunbar on September 3 1650. Leaving 4,000 Scottish soldiers dead and 10,000 taken prisoner, he quickly moved to capture the Scottish capital of Edinburgh.

During the winter 1650-51 Cromwell was taken ill and the army bogged down. But the following summer he outmaneuvered the Scots who, rather than allow themselves to have their lines of communication cut, followed the young King Charles II into England. Charles II and the remaining Covenanters was making a final desperate bid to invade England and capture London while Cromwell was still in Scotland. Cromwell rapidly pursued them south, however, and caught them at Worcester in September. In the ensuing battle Cromwell's forces wiped out the last major Scottish royalist army. Scotland was henceforward ruled from England under military occupation. Cromwell was welcomed as a hero on his return to London.
==Creating the Protectorate==
During the next two years the quarrel between Parliament and army, which had begun in 1647, was revived. The army was now radically inclined, seeking reform in Church and State. Cromwell became the spokesman of the army's point of view, although once again he tried first to act as conciliator between the two sides. The soldiers asked that the remnant of the original "Long Parliament" of 1640, now known as "the Rump," should be dissolved and a fresh reformist one-chamber Parliament be elected. Other sections of the community had tired of the long naval war then in progress against the Dutch Republic (1652-1654), in which Cromwell's army had no part, and indeed resented as a fratricidal war against fellow Protestants.

When negotiations for the election of a new Parliament broke down, Cromwell forcibly dissolved the Rump on April 20, 1653. By 1653 Cromwell and his Army effectively controlled all Britain. Cromwell did not himself seize political power; he decided instead to invite the Independent churches to nominate members of a Puritan Assembly, which would exercise both executive and legislative powers. In spring 1653 came his best chance to become an all-powerful dictator, and he turned away; with a standing army of under 15,000 men at a time when the population of England and Wales was approximately 5.5 million, the creation of a military dictatorship was a practical impossibility. There were few political prisoners, and only those who actually participated in rebellion were executed; torture was not used.

==Named Lord Protector==
The Nominated Parliament set about reform with enthusiasm, but was soon split between a radical and a conservative wing. When the conservative wing gained control in December 1653 after a tussle, the majority resigned their powers into Cromwell's hands. This coup d'état was engineered by Cromwell's second-in-command, John Lambert; and it was Lambert who drew up an '''"Instrument of Government"''' as a new constitution for the English commonwealth. This constitution provided for an elected parliament, a nominated council of state, and a lord protector as chief executive officer. Cromwell was offered and accepted the post of Lord Protector, not as a dictator but as the first servant of the Commonwealth of England, united with conquered Scotland and Ireland. There was widespread [[republicanism]] and a sense that the old monarchical system was dead.

Some officers wanted Cromwell to become a hereditary king but he refused and instead took the title Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. Cromwell did made the decisions--he was a dictator in that sense--but he rarely broke the law. He preferred persuasion to coercion and did not try to impose an authoritarian regime that tolerated only one set of ideas. His experiment with major-generals taking control of England has aspects of a military dictatorship, but the experiment lasted less than 15 months in 1655-57, and the generals did not in fact loom large in deciding local policies. So it verged upon, but did not reach, military rule. When offered the crown, Cromwell said no. He did set up his son as his successor, but made no serious preparations and the son was soon ousted.<ref> Austin Woolrych, (1990)</ref>

==Lord Protector==
For the remaining five years of his life Cromwell governed as lord protector, sometimes with the help of a parliament, sometimes without it. But like the kings of old, he was always dependent upon the advice and support of his Council of State, or later, [[Privy Council]]. At its opening session the Protectorate Parliament (September 1654-January 1655) was more concerned about revising the new constitution than about passing legislation. Differences between protector and parliament encouraged the Royalists. In January 1655, Cromwell dissolved this parliament.

===Rule of the Major Generals===
A rebellion broke out in March 1655, and although it was easily suppressed, the country was divided into ten districts, each under a major general. That experiment lasted barely a year.

Cromwell imposed martial law in England and the country was divided into eleven districts, each district being overseen by a Major-General. The responsibilities of these Major-Generals included maintaining order, collecting taxes, granting poor relief and imposing Puritan morality. In some districts bear-baiting, cock-fighting, horse-racing and wrestling were banned. Betting and gambling were also forbidden. Large numbers of [[Public house|pubs]] were closed and fines were imposed on people heard swearing. In some districts, the Major-Generals also closed the theatres.

===Constitutional experiments===
Meanwhile England was involved in a fresh war, this time waged against the Spanish Empire; Cromwell, needing money, called a new Parliament to vote him supplies. It met in fall 1656; Cromwell argued on behalf of his policies, but met with considerable opposition, especially from out-and-out republicans who objected to the whole idea of the Protectorate. The new House was therefore in effect "purged" of 160 members, many of whom refused to take an oath to uphold the structure of the Protectorate. The remaining members, on the whole, cooperated with Cromwell and his Council of State. But they were opposed to the system of local government through the major generals. Rather than sustain military rule, a group of lawyers and civilians proposed to create a constitutional monarchy and a Puritan Church, with Cromwell as king.

Cromwell was tempted by the offer of a crown, but eventually, largely because of the opposition of his old friends and supporters in the army, he refused it. Nevertheless a new constitution was promulgated, providing for a revived House of Lords; a Lower House, to which all except known royalists were to be admitted; a Privy Council, replacing the Council of State; and certain restrictions on the powers of the lord protector and on freedom of religion. This constitution, originally called "the Humble Petition and Advice", came into effect in June 1657. A House of Lords was nominated, but the second Protectorate House of Commons, reinforced by the excluded members and deprived of Cromwell's friends whom he had promoted to the upper House, met in January 1658, to be the scene of an immediate attack launched upon the Protector by the republicans, and aiming to tear the new constitution to pieces.

Cromwell was at last angered beyond restraint. Convinced that a fresh squabble in Parliament would be followed by a Royalist invasion, he promptly dissolved Parliament on Feb. 4, 1658.
===Foreign affairs===
For the last few months of his life Cromwell governed without a parliament. The war (with France) against Spain was virtually won, thanks to naval victories. A naval expedition to the West Indies resulted in the capture of [[Jamaica]] from Spain (May 1655), and Cromwell tried to convert it into a flourishing British colony.<ref> James Robertson, "Cromwell and the Conquest of Jamaica." ''History Today'' 2005 55(5): 15-22. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref> In June 1658 he also obtained the port of [[Dunkirk]] as payment for the French alliance. After the peace with Holland in 1654, commerce had expanded.

Cromwell in 1654-55 launched a vastly ambitious "Western Design", with conquest of key Spanish territories in the West Indies; it failed badly because of defeats, disease and [[guerrilla]] resistance. Cromwell despaired that God had turned against him, while public reactions focused on the failure of English character and masculinity, revealing the ideological structures that underpinned both imperial expansion and the English revolution during the 1650s. Contemporary accounts dwelt on the disastrous campaign to control Jamaica, contrasting the supposedly cowardly conduct of General Robert Venables in Jamaica with the heroism of Major General James Heane in Hispaniola, suggesting that Venables's pusillanimity reflected a general failure of the British troops to live up to the ideal of godly valor and English superiority, associated in the public mind with the New Model Army. The Western Design debacle was a crisis for Cromwell's protectorate, straining the notion that God favored Puritan England, but the vision of Heane's martial virtues ultimately provided a model that guided the future success of the British Empire.<ref> Jamaica was permanently captured, at great cost. James Robertson, "Cromwell and the Conquest of Jamaica," ''History Today'' 55, No. 5 (May 2005) pp 15-22; Carla Gardina Pestana, "English Character and the Fiasco of the Western Design." ''Early American Studies'' 2005 3(1): 1-31. Issn: 1543-4273 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]</ref>

===Toleration===
Cromwell fought hard against the more bigoted Puritans to maintain genuine freedom for the Christian religion, permitting even Episcopalians and Roman Catholics to worship in private houses. He appointed good judges, and pressed his legal advisers to reform the law and make it less expensive. He promoted education; for a time he was chancellor of Oxford University, and helped to found a college at Durham. The regime's religious policies fell significantly short of comprehensive toleration, though; rather, Cromwell offered liberty of conscience to a broad range of independent sects, whose members he sought to draw together in a united 'godly party'. Anglicans, Catholics and some of the more radical Protestant groups were excluded from the embrace of official toleration.<ref> See Blair Worden, "Toleration and the Cromwellian Protectorate" in W.J. Sheils, ed., "Persecution and Toleration Studies" in ''Studies Church History,''(1984) v.21</ref>

===Levellers===
Former members of the Levellers, an extreme anti-elitist group, grew disillusioned with the dictatorial policies of Cromwell. In 1655 Edward Sexby, John Wildman and Richard Overton were involved in fomenting a plot to overthrow the government, but the conspiracy was discovered and the plotters fled to the [[Netherlands]]. In May 1657 Edward Sexby published (under the pseudonym William Allen) ''Killing No Murder'', a political pamphlet that argued the justification of an assassination of Cromwell. The following month he arrived in England to carry out the assassination, but was arrested and imprisoned.
===Death and succession===
Cromwell's strong personality and the backing of the army held the Commonwealth together and preserved internal peace; he had to contend with republican plotters as well as discontented Royalists and foreign enemies.

By 1658 the government's debt stood at £1.5 million, largely because of the heavy cost of the armed forces, which the government proved unable to reduce in size. The regime's military commitments were taking it to the verge of bankruptcy, just when it seemed to be devising a feasible civilian basis for its rule.

In 1658 Cromwell announced that he wanted his son, Richard Cromwell, to replace him as Lord Protector of the Commonwealth. The English army was unhappy with this decision. While they respected Oliver as a skillful military commander, Richard was just a country farmer.

Worn out, Oliver Cromwell died in London of malaria on September 3, 1658. On his deathbed he named his ineffective son Richard Cromwell (1626-1712) his successor. Richard lasted only 8 months, to be followed in power by the head of the army, [[George Monck]]; he lasted for less than a year, whereupon Parliament restored the monarchy, under [[Charles II]].

==Image and reputation==
At the Restoration in 1660, Cromwell's body was disinterred from the tomb of kings in [[Westminster Abbey]] and was hung from the gallows at Tyburn.

Blair Warden, a leading historian, reports, "From his century to ours, Oliver Cromwell has been the most controversial figure of English history."<ref>Blair Warden, "The English Reputations of Oliver Cromwell, 1660-1900" in William Lamont, ed. [http://books.google.com/books?id=fi4SmvdoUfoC&pg=PA35&dq=%22From+his+century+to+ours,+Oliver+Cromwell%22&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&sig=Zjm1_A4NGCzCyrl8RpbIB-47Dug ''Historical Controversies And Historians'' (1998) p. 35]</ref> First, Cromwell is well known and highly thought of; recent BBC polls show the public considers him one of the ten greatest Britons. Second, his importance and influence is beyond doubt, as is his stature as an outstanding soldier and diplomat. The main facts of his career are not in dispute, only the moral evaluation of those facts.<ref>Compare the controversies over King [[Richard III]], who was a minor player as king for less than two years and whose facts are in dispute.</ref> Third, the range and intensity of opinion is extreme, from those who laud him as a champion of liberty and republicanism who uplifted Britain's stature in the world, to those who to this date hate him as a regicide and murderer of so many Irish Catholics. The debate ranges from commoners to kings, and historians have been deeply involved. In the 1930s and 1940s most scholars saw him as a dangerous dictator, along the lines of Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler. In recent decades nearly all the scholars have been favorable.

During his lifetime, some tracts painted him as a hypocrite motivated by power — for example, ''The Machiavilian Cromwell'' and ''The Juglers Discovered'', both part of an attack on Cromwell by the [[Levellers]] after 1647, present him as a Machiavellian figure. After his death and public disgrace there were many denunciations and a few positive portrayals, such as John Spittlehouse's ''A Warning Piece Discharged'' which compared him to Moses, rescuing the English by taking them safely through the Red Sea of the civil wars.<ref>John Morrill, "Cromwell and his contemporaries", in Morrill, (1990) pp. 263–4, 271-2 </ref> The great royalist historian Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, in his ''History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England'' (1667) declared that Cromwell "will be looked upon by posterity as a brave bad man". Clarendon argued that Cromwell's rise to power had been helped not only by his great spirit and energy, but also by his ruthlessness. The aristocracy was especially hostile to Cromwell, in large part because of his strong appeal to the common yeoman.

In the early 18th century, Cromwell’s image began to be adopted and reshaped by the [[Whig Party|Whigs]], an out-party opposing the Tories around the Hanoverian kings. They stressed Cromwell as [[Republicanism|republican]], a theme often adopted by American historians. <ref>Blair Worden, ''Roundhead Reputations: The English Civil Wars and the Passions of Posterity'' (2001). pp.53–59.</ref>

During the early 19th century, Cromwell's image was glorified by Romantic artists and poets. French author Victor Hugo's 1827 play ''Cromwell'' was representative of the French romantic movement, showing Cromwell as a ruthless yet dynamic Romantic hero. The major breakthrough came at the hands of a leading Romantic historian, [[Thomas Carlyle]] who in the 1840s saw Cromwell as the hero in a battle between good and evil. Carlyle used Cromwell as a model for restoring morality to a Victorian era that otherwise was prone to timidity, meaningless rhetoric, and moral compromise. The growth of Nonconformity in the nineteenth century encouraged an appreciation of Cromwell's Puritanism.

By the late 19th century, Carlyle’s portrayal of Cromwell, stressing the centrality of puritan morality and earnestness, had become assimilated into mainstream [[historiography]]. Britain's outstanding research scholar on the era, [[Samuel Rawson Gardiner]], concluded that "the man — it is ever so with the noblest — was greater than his work". <ref>Gardiner, ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1901) p. 315.</ref> Gardiner demonstrated Cromwell’s dynamic and mercurial character, and his role in ridding England of obsolete absolutism, while downplaying Cromwell’s intense religiosity.<ref>Worden, ''Roundhead Reputations'' (2001) pp. 256–260.</ref> Gardner showed Cromwell’s aggressive foreign policy was a foretaste Victorian imperial expansion, with Gardiner stressing his “constancy of effort to make England great by land and sea”.<ref>Gardiner, ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1901) p. 318.</ref>

Royals dislike regicides, so King [[George V]] vetoed Churchill's proposal in 1915 to name a battleship "The Cromwell"; but King [[George VI]] made no objection to the naming of a class of tanks that helped to win World War II after Old Ironsides. In the mid-20th century, Cromwell's reputation was often shaped by the rise of dictators like Mussolini and Hitler. In the 1930s Wilbur Cortez Abott, a Harvard professor, compiled and edited a multi-volume collection of Cromwell's letters and speeches, and concluded Cromwell had fascist tendencies. However, subsequent historians such as John Morrill have criticised both Abbott's interpretation of Cromwell and his editorial approach.<ref>John Morrill, "Textualising and Contextualising Cromwell", in ''Historical Journal'' (1990). v33#3, pp. 629-639.</ref>

Cromwell's reputation is now in the ascendant. More than twenty biographies by academic historians have been published in the past fifty years; all but one have been laudatory. They praise his integrity, his reliance upon his God, his brilliance as a soldier, his restless energy as head of state. There are varying estimates of the long-term effects of his role in the British Revolutions; but no recent biographer doubts that he was a man to be admired.<ref> Morrill (2003)</ref>

Recent scholars have emphasized Cromwell’s religiosity and downplayed his authoritarian style. Austin Woolrych explored the issue of "dictatorship" in depth, arguing that Cromwell was subject to two conflicting forces: his obligation to the army and his desire to achieve a lasting settlement, by winning back the confidence of the political nation as a whole. Woolrych argued that the dictatorial elements of Cromwell's rule stemmed not so much from its military origins or the participation of army officers in civil government, as from his constant commitment to the interest of the people of God, and his conviction that suppressing vice and encouraging virtue constituted the chief purpose of government.<ref>Austin Woolrych, "The Cromwellian Protectorate: a Military Dictatorship?" in ''History'' (1990) 75(244): 207-231</ref>

Historians such as John Morrill, Blair Worden and J.C. Davis have explored Cromwell's religious rhetoric, showing his speeches are suffused with biblical references, and arguing that his radical actions were driven by his zeal for godly reformation.<ref>Morrill "Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658)", in ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,''(2004). [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6765]; Blair Worden, "Oliver Cromwell and the sin of Achan". In Beales, D. and Best, G., ''History, Society and the Churches'' (1985); J.C. Davis, "Cromwell’s religion", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990). </ref>
==Bibliography==
===Biographies===
* Ashley, Maurice. ''The Greatness of Oliver Cromwell'' (1958). 382pp, a standard scholarly biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3806780 online edition]
* Bennett, Martyn. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (2006), ISBN 0-415-31922-6. [http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Cromwell-Routledge-Historical-Biographies/dp/0415319226/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212181942&sr=1-22 excerpt and text search]
* Coward, Barry ''Cromwell'' (1991), a standard scholarly biography
* Clifford, Alan. ''Oliver Cromwell: the lessons and legacy of the Protectorate'' (1999), ISBN 0-9526716-2-X. praises his religiousity
* Davis, J. C. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (2001), shows Cromwell's remarkable skill at building complex networks of supporters, including coreligionists, politicians and soldiers. ISBN 0-340-73118-4
* Drinkwater John. ''Oliver Cromwell, a Character Study'' (2007) [http://books.google.com/books?id=62DlZJaCaWkC&pg=PA173&dq=intitle:Cromwell+date:2006-2008&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0&sig=79z-gHLUUSA7Bpsg-3TCXGuMKQM excerpts and text search]
* Fraser, Antonia. ''Cromwell, Our Chief of Men,'' and ''Cromwell: the Lord Protector'' (1973), ISBN 0-7538-1331-9. Popular narrative. [http://www.amazon.com/Cromwell-Antonia-Fraser/dp/0802137660/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212181888&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1901). ISBN 1-4179-4961-9. Classic biography. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6034779 online edition]
* Gaunt, Peter. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1994), 144pp ISBN 0-631-18356-6. Short biography by scholar
* Hill, Christopher. ''God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell And The English Revolution'' (1970), ISBN 0-297-00043-8.
* Hirst, Derek. "The Lord Protector, 1653-8", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990), ISBN 0-582-01675-4
* Mason, James and Angela Leonard. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1998), ISBN 0-582-29734-6. 128pp succinct and effective
* Morrill, John. "Cromwell, Oliver (1599–1658)", in ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,'' (2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/6765 online to subscribers], the best place to start
* Morrill, John. "The Making of Oliver Cromwell", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990), ISBN 0-582-01675-4.
* Paul, Robert. ''The Lord Protector: Religion And Politics In The Life of Oliver Cromwell''. (1958) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=3672431 online edition]
* Wedgwood, C.V. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (1939), popular ISBN 0-7156-0656-5.
* Worden, Blair (1985). "Oliver Cromwell and the sin of Achan", in Beales, D. and Best, G. (eds.) ''History, Society and the Churches'', ISBN 0-521-02189-8.

===Political studies===
* Adamson, John . "Oliver Cromwell and the Long Parliament", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990)
* Adamson, John. "The English Nobility and the Projected Settlement of 1647", in ''Historical Journal'', (1987) v30#3.
* Coward, Barry. ''The Cromwellian Protectorate'' (2002),
* Firth, C.H. ''Oliver Cromwell and the Rule of the Puritans in England'' (1900). [http://books.google.com/books?id=Y14NAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Oliver+intitle:Cromwell+intitle:and+intitle:the+intitle:Rule+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Puritans&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 full text online]
* Little, Patrick, ed. ''The Cromwellian Protectorate.'' (2007). 218 pp.
* Little, Patrick. "Offering the Crown to Cromwell." ''History Today'' 2007 57(2): 24-31. Issn: 0018-2753 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Little, Patrick and David L. Smith, eds. ''Parliaments and Politics during the Cromwellian Protectorate'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Parliaments-Politics-Cromwellian-Protectorate-Cambridge/dp/0521838673/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300336&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Peacey, Jason. "Cromwellian England: a Propaganda State?" ''History'' 2006 91(2): 176-199. Issn: 0018-2648 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]], says that in 1653-1659, profound changes were implemented in intelligence gathering, press censorship, and propaganda and in the deployment of resources and bureaucratic efficiency. By concentrating power in the hands of the secretary of state, Cromwell;s regime sought to exert its power in only some areas of print culture rather than to achieve a complete press monopoly.
* Smith, David, ed. ''Oliver Cromwell and the Interregnum'' (2003), ISBN 0-631-22725-3.
* Smith, David. ''Oliver Cromwell: Politics and Religion in the English Revolution 1640-1658'' (1992) [http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Cromwell-Revolution-1640-1658-Cambridge/dp/0521388961/ref=sr_1_36?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212181977&sr=1-36 excerpt and text search]

===Military studies===
* Capp, Bernard. ''Cromwell's Navy:The fleet and the English Revolution, 1648-1660'' (1989)
* Durston, Christopher. "'Settling the Hearts and Quieting the Minds of All Good People': the Major-generals and the Puritan Minorities of Interregnum England", in ''History'' 2000 85(278): pp.247-267, ISSN 0018-2648 . Full text online at [[Ebsco]]
* Durston, Christopher. "The Fall of Cromwell's Major-Generals", in ''English Historical Review'' 1998 113(450): pp.18-37, ISSN 0013-8266
* Durston, Christopher. ''Cromwell's Major Generals: Godly Government during the English Revolution'' (2001)
* Firth, C.H. ''Cromwell's Army'' (1902), [http://books.google.com/books?id=hx4kAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:Cromwell%27s+intitle:Army&lr=&num=30&as_brr=0 online edition]
* Gillingham, J. ''Portrait Of A Soldier: Cromwell'' (1976), ISBN 0-297-77148-5.
* Kenyon, John, and Jane Ohlmeyer, eds. ''The Civil Wars: A Military History of England, Scotland, and Ireland 1638-1660'' 391 pp. (1998), thorough coverage by numerous scholars [http://www.questia.com/read/85742104?title=The%20Civil%20Wars%3a%20A%20Military%20History%20of%20England%2c%20Scotland%2c%20and%20Ireland%201638-1660 online edition]
* Kitson, Frank (2004). ''Old Ironsides: The Military Biography of Oliver Cromwell'' (2004), 239pp ISBN 0-297-84688-4.
* Marshall, Alan. ''Oliver Cromwell: Soldier: The Military Life of a Revolutionary at War'' (2004), ISBN 1-85753-343-7.
* Wheeler, J. Scott. ''Cromwell in Ireland'' (1999). the standard study
* Woolrych, Austin. "The Cromwellian Protectorate: a Military Dictatorship?" in ''History'' 1990 75(244): 207-231, ISSN 0018-2648 . Full text online at Ebsco.
* Woolrych, Austin. "Cromwell as a soldier", in Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990)
* Woolrych, Austin. ''Soldiers and Statesmen: the General Council of the Army and its Debates'' (1987), ISBN 0-19-822752-3.
* Young, Peter and Richard Holmes. ''The English Civil War,'' (2000) ISBN 1-84022-222-0. [http://www.amazon.com/English-Civil-Wordsworth-Military-Library/dp/1840222220/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300220&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

===Surveys of era===
* Coward, Barry. ''The Cromwellian Protectorate'' (2002) ISBN 0-7190-4317-4.
* Coward, Barry, ed. ''A Companion to Stuart Britain'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Companion-Britain-Blackwell-Companions-British/dp/0631218742/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300112&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Coward, Barry ''The Stuart Age: England, 1603-1714,'' (2003). ISBN 0-582-77251-6. Survey of political history of the era.
* Davies, Godfrey. ''The Early Stuarts, 1603-1660'' (1959). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=774608 online]. Political, religious, and diplomatic overview of the era.
* Gardiner, Samuel Rawson. ''History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649'' (4 vol 1898) [http://books.google.com/books?id=absqibcUmIQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:History+intitle:of+intitle:the+intitle:Great+intitle:Civil+intitle:War+inauthor:Gardiner&lr=&as_brr=0 online edition from Google]
* Gaunt, Peter. ''The Cromwellian Gazetteer: An Illustrated Guide to Britain in the Civil War and Commonwealth'' (1998), 256pp; heavily illustrated; covers the scenes of military conflict such as battlefields, castles, fortified houses and churches, defended and besieged towns and cities
* Korr, Charles P. ''Cromwell and the New Model Foreign Policy: England's Policy toward France, 1649-1658'' (1975) ISBN 0-520-02281-5. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98872257 online]
* Macinnes, Allan. ''The British Revolution, 1629-1660'' (2005), 337pp ISBN 0-333-59750-8.
* Morrill, John. "Cromwell and his contemporaries". In Morrill, John (ed.), ''Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution'' (1990) ISBN 0-582-01675-4. [http://www.amazon.com/Oliver-Cromwell-English-Revolution-Morrill/dp/0582016754/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300435&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Trevor-Roper, Hugh. ''Oliver Cromwell and his Parliaments'', in his ''Religion, the Reformation and Social Change'' (1967). [http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=719&chapter=77057&layout=html&Itemid=27 online edition]
* Venning, Timothy. ''Cromwellian Foreign Policy'' (1995) ISBN 0-333-63388-1.
* Woolrych, Austin. ''Commonwealth to Protectorate'' (1982), ISBN 0-19-822659-4.
* Woolrych, Austin. ''Britain in Revolution 1625-1660'' (2002), ISBN 0-19-927268-6. [http://www.amazon.com/Britain-Revolution-1625-1660-Austin-Woolrych/dp/0199272689/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212300255&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
===Historiography===
* Davis, J. C. ''Oliver Cromwell'' (2001). 243 pp; a biographical study that covers sources and historiography
* Goodlad, Graham. "The Cromwellian Protectorate." ''History Review,'' (March 2007,) Issue 57; online at [[EBSCO]]
* Lunger Knoppers, Laura. ''Constructing Cromwell. Ceremony, Portrait and Print, 1645-1661'' (2000), shows how people compared Cromwell to King Ahab, King David, Elijah, Gideon and Moses, as well as Brutus and Julius Caesar.
* Morrill, John. "Rewriting Cromwell: a Case of Deafening Silences." ''Canadian Journal of History'' 2003 38(3): 553-578. Issn: 0008-4107 Fulltext: [[Ebsco]]
* Worden, Blair. "Thomas Carlyle and Oliver Cromwell", in ''Proceedings Of The British Academy''(2000) 105: pp.131-170. ISSN 0068-1202 .
* Worden, Blair. ''Roundhead Reputations: the English Civil Wars and the passions of posterity'' (2001), 387pp; ISBN 0-14-100694-3.
* Warden, Blair. "The English Reputations of Oliver Cromwell, 1660-1900" in William Lamont, ed. '' ''Historical Controversies and Historians'' (1998) 35-48 [http://books.google.com/books?id=fi4SmvdoUfoC&pg=PA35&dq=%22 online]

===Primary sources===
* Abbott, W.C., ed. ''Writings and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell,'' 4 vols. (1937-47).The largest reference for Cromwell's own words [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98993729 online edition].
** Morrill, John. "Textualizing and Contextualizing Cromwell", in ''Historical Journal'' 1990 33(3): pp.629-639. ISSN 0018-246X . [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2639734 in Jstor] Examines the Carlyle and Abbott editions.
* Carlyle, Thomas, ed. ''Oliver Cromwell's letters and speeches, with elucidations''. (1904 edition), [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98993729 online edition]
* Haykin, Michael A. G. ed. ''To Honour God: The Spirituality of Oliver Cromwell'' (1999). ISBN 1-894400-03-8. Excerpts from Cromwell's religious writings.
* Roots, Ivan. ''Speeches of Oliver Cromwell'' (1989, ISBN 0-460-01254-1.

==External links==
*[http://www.olivercromwell.org/ The Oliver Cromwell Association]
*[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/cromwell_oliver.shtml Cromwell at BBC History]
*[http://britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon48.html Cromwell at ''Britannia'' website]

====notes====
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cromwell, Oliver}}

[[Category:Military Commanders]]
{{Nb_english_monarchs}}
[[Category:English Civil War]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:Puritans]]

Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?

2009-09-30T01:26:30Z

LincolnShuddered:

The Conservapedia logo, as I am sure you are all aware, proudly displays the flag of the United States. While this certainly reflects conservatism in the United States, it does little to consider the other conservatives in the world. I suggest a change is in order. Perhaps a portrait of Edmund Burke, a Godfather of conservatism? -- [[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

:I would support changing the logo, since in its current form it is in clear violation of Section 3 of the U.S. flag code.

:: "Any person who, within the District of Columbia, in any manner, for exhibition or display, shall place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing, or any advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America; [...] shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $100 or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days, or both. [...] The words 'flag, standard, colors, or ensign', as used herein, shall include any flag, standard, colors, ensign, or any picture or representation of either, or of any part or parts of either, made of any substance or represented on any substance, of any size evidently purporting to be either of said flag, standard, colors, or ensign of the United States of America or a picture or a representation of either, upon which shall be shown the colors, the stars and the stripes, in any number of either thereof, or of any part or parts of either, by which the average person seeing the same without deliberation may believe the same to represent the flag, colors, standard, or ensign of the United States of America.

:Perhaps there is no violation of the letter of the law if this site is hosted outside of DC, but I believe it quite clearly violates the flag code in spirit. While I appreciate Conservapedia's desire to have a patriotic logo, I've always found this flagrant show of disrespect to be somewhat appalling for a site of this nature. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 22:10, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

:::Ridiculous statements--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:36, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

::::The logo places a word on a representation of the U.S. flag. This explicitly violates the flag code. What exactly do you find ridiculous about my statements? Do you believe the flag code should be amended to permit such displays? Of course it's not as bad as burning the flag or some such, and the code doesn't have force of law here, but I think CP should do better. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 23:48, 17 September 2009 (EDT)

My original point in starting this topic was to help Conservapedia reach out to the global conservative comunity, as opposed to a strictly American conservative encyclopedia as the logo suggests. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]] 20:26, 29 September 2009 (EDT)

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

2009-09-23T22:43:00Z

LincolnShuddered:

{{debate}}

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

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

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

I agree with Kirby; the very idea of left and right wing was non existant in those days. In fact, it is blasphemy for any group to claim him as their own. As a conscientious Christian, I find it nothing short of disgraceful when the Religious Right try to twist his word to legislate their own prejudices. There was no provision in the Bible for opposing slavery - this has been twisted by wingnuts in order to get a Christian endorsement of it. Some of the most extreme white supremacists in South Africa and America have used the Great Flood to demonstrate that Blacks come from one of the animals, as the only humans who travelled aboard the ship were clearly white, as their lineage can be traced to the caucasian King David.

Now, the Religious Right use Christianity in order to legislate against homosexuals. I believe that if Christ were around today, he would storm out of the houses of government in much the same way he stormed out of the Temple. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:26, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Communist ==
Since he thought everyone deserved a second chance, he would want that to apply to our economic system as well! That way, anyone who desired wealth and was willing to contribute productive to society should be held equal to all other such people.
To allow a "redeemed" person to suffer for past poor financial decisions is to hold back forgiveness.

Besides, the notion of God today is so reminiscent of Lenin's cult of the personality.

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

1. Not all "liberals" deny Christ. There are many of us who are quite orthodox in our Christian faith and yet support some (not all) liberal causes. [[User:Burgeson|Burgy]] 15:04, 4 February 2009 (EST)

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

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

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
:::::I meet error by firm and swift correction. You're more than a little late replying to my point, anyway.
:::::The one thing that Jesus ''would not'' do is to task the civil government with enforcement of "being nice to people," or even suggest that that was any of the civil government's business.
:::::He ''would'' say that the civil government exists to restrain evil--and you do not restrain evil by letting it run amuck.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:22, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

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

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

::According to Revelations 19 Jesus is Lord of lords and Kings of kings so if he were here he would be setting up his own kingdom. And this is what is taking place in Revelations 19. Jesus is coming to the earth and when he gets here he will establish his kingdom. This is what we see Jesus doing in the Gospels of the Bible; he is establishing his kingdom by shedding his blood for his followers. Jesus is a king. [BJE]
Jesus would be independent. he would not support the war, so he might vote liberaly to insure it's end[[User:Pastafarian2|Pastafarian2]] 22:36, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

I don't think Jesus cared about politics. Give Caesar back his money, and live a Christian life. The early disciples ran small anarchist communes according to Acts, but I think Jesus was too much concerned with having his followers feed the hungry voluntarily rather than creating efficient government programs to do it. Because of this, I think the lack of government and private property was his eventual goal, since if people are kind and voluntarily accept the authority of God, you wouldn't need either. -[[User:Danq|danq]] 18:45, 19 September 2009 (EDT)

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

::A great place to see this is on the [[Social Democracy of America]], SDoA [http://www.socialdemocraticpartyofamerica.org/politicalspectrum.htm political spectrum] page which clearly shows the different levels from left to right within Christianity. {{AtleeYarrow}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Was Jesus a politician? No!! Would he be a politician today? Of course not!! All politics lays on a bed of corruption.... did Jesus say, "the Roman laws are bad, let's petition the Romans to change the law"? Of course not, the thought is absurd -- Jesus said "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" because Jesus intended for his followers to work outside the corruption of any political system.... supporting a set of values and using the coercive power of the state to enforce those values on non-believers are two different things.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 12:50, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

== Political words of Jesus ==
This debate is pretty ridiculous. Here is the political position of Jesus:

:Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

:"Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to god what is gods"
:--[[User:Yellowlamp|Yellowlamp]] 18:48, 28 January 2008 (EST)

==Ahem==
Do you people have any idea why there are atheists? It isnt because of a broken home, or gays or anything. It is because of conversations like this. Attempting to turn Jesus into a political figure is the reason Gandhi said "I like your Christ, not your Christians. Your christians are so unlike your christ." With this argument, you are turning Jesus into a glorification of yourself. You are saying, "I AM JESUS". This debate is completely outside of respect and common sense. You claim you are trying to be more like this Jesus fellow you always blab about, but you are actually trying to turn jesus into yourself. You are just like Huckabee. "Jesus would support the death penalty, get drunk, watch nascar, and shoot the homasexuals". You are all idiots. And it makes me sick that you ACTUALLY belive what you are saying is right. And makes me want to move to Canada.

Yours, in all ways.
--[[User:MrSmiley|MrSmiley]] 15:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well said! --[[User:Sforzando|Sforzando]] 12:32, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

==Monarchist==

Hey, his official title '''is''' "King of Kings". --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 15:46, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

==Honestly,==

Personally, I see him as a liberal. Now, it's not to be rude or mean or going against the wind here, but seriously, I've always seen Jesus more as a friend than as my King. I respect him, but I don't fear him. God is love, and you cannot fear that.

Anyway, back to the controversy, I find him a liberal because according to what I've read he was a reasonably layed-back guy. He preached equallity, [[Hippie|peace and love]]. Not that Jesus was a hippie, I also see him as very moralistic and very conservative in that sense. I just see.. a liberal believing in democracy and absolute freedom (the only thing God gave only to man was the ability of choice, absolute freedom).

But the Bible says that Christians are specifically supposed to fear God. How do you get around that? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:57, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Faulty Question==

Jesus is alive today. (The Resurrection.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:00, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

== He wouldn't. ==
He'd probably be a beggar, or a helper of the poor. He'd laugh and scoff at the televangelists making millions, who live in houses covered in gold.

And the vast majority of people here are just taking the idea of Jesus (Atheist here) and going "Yeah, he'd love this or this or this!" mostly because, well, he can't speak for himself. It's like when a person dies and people go "He'd be okay with this or this or this." I oughta know, I've seen in firsthand. --[[User:GunnerRecall|GunnerRecall]] 16:52, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

== The Fact That This Would Even Be Asked... ==
...is sickening. It shows that certain types of "christians" are fake, or naive. We have politicians claiming to be so religious to incite all the funementalists to go vote for them. It's disturbing. These religious and "family values" politicians are totally fake, ad these fundies who vote simply for religion have no concept of what it really takes to be a government official. As for this debate specificly... Jesus would laugh in your face. Politics have no business in what He would concern Himself with, which is most certainly NOT who to vote for.[[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:22, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

== He already answered ==

In the Synoptic gospels, there is the account of Jesus being tempted by the devil following his baptism. One of the temptations that Satan used was political power, which Jesus refused. Although, if he came back and were asked today, I do not think that he would care. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?

2009-09-23T22:37:42Z

LincolnShuddered:

{{debate}}

Would Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic be considered examples of foreign languages? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't see a real point. I'd rather kids learn German, Arabic, Farsi, Mandarin, or some other useful language in school rather than Italian, Spanish and French. I'd also rather we start teaching kids foreign languages much earlier before English Language patterns are set.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:45, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Spanish can be useful down in South-West US, places such as Arizona or New Mexico, so I don't see the problem with it.. But French is such a commonly taught language in North America; how useful is it really? Anyways, I quite agree with what Elamdri states.--[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]
:When I say useful, I mean languages that are more sought after in the business and government spheres. Yeah, Spanish can be helpful if you work at McDonalds in New Mexico, but other than that, your limited. German and especially Mandarin are the other two languages of big business besides English. Farsi and Arabic are important languages right now for anyone looking into careers in government, military, and espionage.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::You do know that there are countries to the south of the United States right? You do know that these countries represent one of the largest trading blocks to the United States? Just wondering. --[[User:Raytrotter|Raytrotter]] 20:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::They aren't going to be NEARLY as important in the near future as Southeast Asia is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::Having worked at a Burger King in New Mexico, I'm pretty sure it's not going to be all that useful. If you want to work at a decent restaurant here, though, Spanish might help. Or, you know, if you want to attempt to talk to the people who do the jobs you don't want to do, keep the American economy from collapse, etc. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 01:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I was being sarcastic. Of course Spanish is useful, but it is more of a region specific language. If you aren't doing business in the southwestern United States, then its practically pointless. Someone like me in the Midwest has no use for it. French and Italian are so pointless they aren't even worth mentioning.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:24, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Unless you plan on, say, doing business with people who speak those languages. We're a country of immigrants, so we're going to have quite a few people who aren't speaking English here. Additionally, the more international the world becomes the more useful-- moneywise as well as culturewise-- it will be to be able to communicate with people who don't speak English. Expecting everyone to learn our language just because we have a puffed up idea of ourselves is naive at best and xenophobic at worst. [[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Your mistaking what I say. For starters, most people learn those languages in high school. Now, how many high school students honestly know they want to do business with people that speak that language? Besides, for the most part, if your an immigrant to the United States, you pick up the basic English needed to survive or you have your children do it for you. With most immigrant families that I have come across, the native tongue dies out after the first generation, because the children simply learn the English and rarely speak the older language. It isn't a bad thing to expect everyone who lives IN the United States to learn English. And honestly, because it is the established lingua franca, I don't see much harm in asking people around the world to agree to an already established common language (unless your really into all that Revelations stuff). If we don't do it now, we might loose our chance if China surpasses us.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::High school students don't know a lot of things about what they do with their lives-- that doesn't mean we should put off letting them choose between Statistics and Calculus until they decide what business they want to go into. I really wish they would've done more foreign language stuff when I was a little kid, though-- I might just be bitter/annoyed at myself that I still don't know Spanish despite having lived in New Mexico for almost 17 years. Oh, and one other thing-- I seriously doubt we're going to have a problem with people needing to learn Chinese. Chinese is terrifyingly difficult. Japanese, Arabic and Farsi, though-- we're going to need a lot more people speaking those really soon.
:::::::I dunno, what happens if China does become the economic juggernaut that some have predicted?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

PS: Oh, and I have one other reason I want everyone to use Spanish: maybe English will come to its senses and pick up a second person pronoun other than "ya'll." Ustedes FTW.[[User:IMFromKathlene|IMFromKathlene]] 03:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::English language tip: the correct spelling of the second-person pronoun in English is "y'all", not "ya'll". Go back to Mexico where you belong, Kathlene!! --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 09:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah, okay, I get what you mean. Thanks! --[[User:Blzorav|Blozrav]]

Generally speaking, yes. Being bilingual never hurts. People whose native language is English/American have a sort of choice since it's a very widely-used language. Everybody else should at least learn English as a second language. For the English-speaking people, I'd suggest French, German, or something like that, if just to appreciate how easy English is. ;) Overall, it depends on what you want to do, like Elamdri pointed out. But being able to communicate in a language other than your first one can be a true asset. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:In my opinion, being bilingual is just a boon really. There's always going to be SOMEONE who knows the language, so really, unless we come across some sort of shortage on translators, we really don't have a problem. Plus, English is pretty much the lingua franca these days. If you go almost anywhere worth going on this rock, you can probably get by just knowing English ("Getting by" in not really the best way to travel though, so its best to invest in some sort of guide if you can). I would however advise against French. Its rather case specific in it's use, and like Spanish, some English and Italian, it's Latin based, meaning that the words share common roots. This makes Spanish, French, and Italian somewhat easier to learn for English speaking students. Thus, people who speak these as a second language are more "dime a dozen." Non Latin based languages, especially the Asia and Middle Eastern languages, are much harder for English speaking students to learn. This means that people who aren't from those regions, who know those languages, are in higher demand. Also, jobs that tend to require those specific skills tend to be much more high profile careers.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Your best bets for a second langauge would be any language formerly used by a colonial power. Spanish, French, German, Portugese, and Dutch are languages that are spoken throughout the world. Some variant of Chinese or Japanese would be helpful too, but good luck learning Chinese languages.

In my experience, Spanish is very useful in business and German not at all. I even have several German clients (Deutsche Bank, Bayerische Hypo- und Veriensbank, Commerzbank, Dow Olefinverbund GmbH, and others, but (i) the people who work there disproportionately speak English and (ii) outside of Germany, Switzerland and Austria, virtually no one else does. While I have no clients based in Spanish speaking countries, the number of business opportunities that arise in Latin America are quite substantial. They have an abundance of natural resources and often need first-world help to exploit them. I *wish* I spoke Spanish (or Portuguese, for Brazil alone). --[[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:34, 09 April 2007 (EDT)
:Key word there being '''exploit'''.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

In order to really understand another country or culture it is mandatory to speak its language.

[[Media:Example.ogg]]== YES ==

Yes you should learn one other language then your own, it REALLY makes your mind work hard
and raises the level of your understanding of many things.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 20:08, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm currently learning both Spanish (in which I'm pretty fluent) and Mandarin (which is way less difficult than some people say it is; no crazy verb tenses to worry about), and I definitely agree that knowing a second language is very important in today's world. The whole "everyone should speak English" idea is wildly outdated. If you compare English verb morphology and possessives to other languages, you see why. English, unless it's your first language, is probably the most difficult language to learn. While I don't meet people every day who only speak Spanish or Mandarin, it's still useful to know the languages and learning a foreign language is intellectually stimulating.
--SapphoChan17

If our country is gaining immigrants and trading with more countries than ever before, learning a second language would be essential to maybe gain a better job or promotion, or maybe to meet new people.
--JPBrick

This being my first edit I apologise if I'm somehow messing up the structure. Being European I figured it might be interesting to add something about my perspective on languages. Since Europe is roughly of the same size as the US (on a very general scale that is), but consists of some 50 nations using some 30 languages our situation is very different from the US, where even the largest neighbour to the North mainly speaks the same language. In Europe most people learn at least one foreign language from third or fourth grade. Personally I took English for ten years (3rd to 12th) and German for 5 (7th to 11th), then some Russian while in the military, and Dutch as an exchange student in the Netherlands during college. Having countries with different languages virtually around the corner shows you the use for knowing languages in a more direct way than a remote possibility in your future professional life. I do believe however that knowing a foreign language is never 'bad' as in being a waste. As someone pointed out above it is not possible to fully understand a culture without knowing the language of the culture. Which language to start with is of course a matter of discussion. Considering the growth of the Chinese impact I guess you could say everone should learn Chinese of some form, but in the US I assume Spanish (or possibly French) might come to more immediate use.
I'd also like to point out that the more languages you know, the easier it becomes to learn more.
--SwedeSteve

Only if they desire to learn one--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:22, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Only if they desire to live in a global community --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?

2009-09-23T22:20:21Z

LincolnShuddered: /* All three */

The Home School movement, definitely.

The home school movement provides parents the responsibility and wonderful opportunity to educate and enrich their children's minds. I go to classes where we study Logic, Latin, and read college books. I have been home schooled for four years and I went to a private school for five years. Home schooling has provided me with enormous amounts of extra-curricular and social activities, as well as academic privileges. Home schoolers '''do''' have a social life, contrary to what the liberals will have you believe. Actually, home-schoolers are more eloquent and insightful in their writing and speech. I am in a home school speech and debate club and I see home schoolers who are speaking with the clarity of . me to any speech and debate tournaments and you will see for yourself. I encourage you to home school your child for it will be one of the best things you can ever do for your child.

: Too bad not everyone can afford the time.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: Strictly from personal experience, a homeschool environment is fertile ground for brainwashing, and usually of the conservative religious bent as well. Public school, for all its flaws, at least exposes students to a far more diverse environment than the other options.
--[[User:Hektor|Hektor]] 00:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Public School ==
Public school is necessary for those who can't afford private school and don't have the time for home school.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 19:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The establishment of public school systems (in the 18th and 19th centuries?) brought about mass literacy as never before seen by humans. Although private schools are a nice option for the rich, and homeschooling for those who have the time and access to resources, the backbone of western civilization as we know it - at its best, even - is the ''right'' to a good education implied in tax-supported free schools for everyone. [[User:Human|Human]] 03:00, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The fundamental problem with claiming that home schooling and/or private schooling are superior to public schools is that both of them ''rely'' on the existence of public schools to ensure that superiority.

Why do many private schools post superior academic results to comparable public schools? Because, of course, they have the option of expelling students who refuse to work...or not accepting such students in the first place.

Now, the problem is this: what is to be done with the children who don't meet the standards of the private school, or who lack parents who have the time/financial stability/inclination to home school? Simply leaving those children to their own devices strikes me as an extraordinarily bad plan; I can't imagine a surer way to ensure a substantial population of criminals.

Public schools have their faults, to be certain--but I have yet to see a proposal for a truly workable system that doesn't include them.

==The Freedom to Choose!==
To be able to choose which philosophy will teach your children. Which one is the best is a subjective endeavor depending on the individual. There is no absolutes between private, public, or home-schools. But to be able to choose which is the best at any given time is the only good philosophy for a society to give its citizens.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 18:36, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
:Clearly if one chooses public schools, one relinquishes their children to the bias and whim of the district school board, whom themselves serve the agenda of the State and Federal Departments of Education. I agree this still constitutes choice, but I disagree with the notion that atheistic dogmatism constitutes any philosophy in the proper sense. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 19:45, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
Bias is inherent in all walks of life. Homeschooling causes the child to serve the whims of their parents, children in private and public schools may learn based on their teachers' opinions. It is impossible to escape bias. Therefore I believe a range of choices will cater to people of all beliefs and truths. [[User:EmiaW|EmiaW]]19:45, 31 July 2009 (EDT)

==All three==

It does not matter how children are educated, as long as they are educated properly to live in the modern world. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?

2009-09-23T22:19:42Z

LincolnShuddered:

Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?

2009-09-23T22:17:09Z

LincolnShuddered:

==Not Necessarily==
I understand killing yourself is an ultimatum sin. But what about people who suffer from depression? They have a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them intense grief. They become so helpless they turn to suicide. Would God punish someone for dieing of cancer? Someone who commits suicide from depression is not thinking with a clear mind due to the depression. However, their are those who commit suicide out of cowardice. I believe those who commit suicide to escape punishment are the ones who go to hell. Not the ones who can't mentally control their emotions. -- [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 24:05, 15 March 2009.

:Just as we don't know who goes to Heaven or hell (that is for Jesus alone to decide), we don't know if all suicides end in hell. The mercy of God's love is not fathomable. All humans are not worthy of God's glory, yet he loves us no matter. I can see instance where a good holy person and mother loses a child to suicide. The Lord would never break her eternal heart saying she must separate her from her beloved offspring in Heaven, because of the evil one's bidding. For all we know, some suicides may end up in Purgatory. This being just a purification stop with a guarantee of Heaven eventually.--[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 02:10, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

::Strictly speaking, suicide is a mortal sin, but not an ''unforgivable'' sin. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Consequently, I think we have reason to hope that, in at least some cases, suicide is forgiven. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:16, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
:::In the Divine Comedy, only one suicide is shown outside Hell, namely [[Cato the Younger]], who guards the gate of Purgatory. He committed suicide rather than surrender, which the Romans considered a noble act. However, Dante doesn't explain why Cato should escape Hell so the exact reasoning behind his placement is a bit of a mystery, even for scholars.

:::I forgot about Purgatory jpatt. As for Dante one should remember he was going on the seven vices and came up with it from his imagination. However Dante gave a great perspective. [[User:GordonF|GordonF]] 18:30, 15 March 2009

::::I don't think all suicides go to Hell. For example: King Saul, the first king of Israel, falls on his own sword after a horrible defeat and to escape capture by the Philistines. [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=9&chapter=31] In fact, it doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that committing suicide automatically send you to Hell. As stated above, the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (I think that ''if'' the Bible said suicide was okay, lots of people would be killing themselves just to get to Heaven.) -[[User:Solomos|Christopher Solomos]] 01:09, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

:::::I've heard it said that suicide is a sin because it is the intentional destruction of a gift of God. Not only that, its the intentional destruction of God's greatest gift -- the gift of life itself. Now, if you take the traditional Protestant position that all your sins must be forgiven to avoid Hell, and that you must request forgiveness to receive it, then suicides do go to Hell, because they commit a sin and then die before they could ask forgiveness. (Well, ignoring cases like someone who jumps off a bridge, thinks better of it, and asks forgiveness on the way down.) However, we must ultimately remember that God is a loving God. I don't think God would condemn a person who did not have control over their own actions due to mental illness. I also don't think God would condemn the poor people who chose to jump out of the World Trade Center on 9/11 rather than burn to death.

:::::However, this leads to another question: what about actions that aren't strictly speaking, suicide, but still self-destructive? For instance, the case of someone who "drank himself to death". (The question of whether or not drinking alcohol is a sin in and of itself is an entire new topic....) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 07:43, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

::::::Couldn't you claim that soldiers who sacrificed themselves to save others committed suicide? God would have to be very strange to condemn them for that show of love. --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:18, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::I would simply like to point out the Samauri of Japan, who would rather commit suicide than live with any sort of cultural dishonor. [[User:EelisA|EelisA]] 12:55, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

There's a difference between sacrificing yourself '''for''' someone, and merely refusing to live with emotional pain. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 5:13) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:03, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

It is my opinion that anyone who commits suicide, with a feeling of complete despair that death seems to be the only solution, that they are not truly thinking clearly, and are thus not held accountable for their action --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?

2009-09-19T00:53:31Z

LincolnShuddered: /* No */

{{Debate}}

The following is a posting that I made on Talk:Barack Obama several months ago, but that never sparked any discussion. I was hoping the theory might encourage more reactions if I made it into a debate page.

"I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany." It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?"

I look forward to a vigorous and respectful debate. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 17:41, 27 May 2009 (EDT)

==Yes==

I'll give this topic another gentle push. Much has been made of the fact that Obama retook his Oath of Office without a Bible, and a number of Conservapedians have speculated that he actually used a Qu'ran. By the principle of Occam's Razor, however, it's logical to assume that he used nothing at all - a sign that his true belief system is not Islam, but atheism. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 19:46, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

:If he believes that "He is the Messiah", that would make him an atheist because God doesn't worship God. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:45, 18 June 2009 (EDT)
:I don't think you can apply Occam's Razor to assumptions - Occam's Razor would seem to dictate in this situation that you not make assumptions as none of them would be more correct than the other. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

::Occam's Razor deals precisely with assumptions - it urges that "entities not be multiplied unnecessarily." In other words, when multiple explanations give coherent descriptions of an event, the "simplest" is the one that ought to be accepted. Of course, the definition of "simplest" is often itself a matter of context. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 23:23, 22 June 2009 (EDT)

I think it seems apparent that he doesn't have much faith, or (if he does) considers himself more of a "humanist" than anything. It's not uncommon for political leaders to adopt a religious belief in order to become elected. Atheists will vote for a religious person, but religious parties will not vote for an atheist. Obama could be an agnostic, as well. [[User:Marlowe|Marlowe]] 14:14, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

==No==

No, he is a Muslim, as documented at [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] and elsewhere on this site. His apparent lack of devotion is just as well explained by his being a Muslim observing taqiyya. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 18:34, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

:But if his being a Muslim "just as well explains" his lack of devotion as his being an atheist, how can you be so certain that [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]] has converged on the correct explanation for his behavior? --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 21:54, 18 June 2009 (EDT)

Of course he's not. Conservatives just want him to be. [[User:JeanJ|JeanJ]] 10:21, 16 July 2009 (EDT)

Only Obama knows what Obama believes. When someone says that they are a Christian, including Obama, I give them the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word. [[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?

2009-09-18T00:51:00Z

LincolnShuddered: /* Yes */

{{Debate}}
George H. W. Bush got the date of Pearl Harbor wrong. Obama accidentally said he'd been to 57, rather than 45, states. Dan Quayle said he wished he spoke Latin (rather than Spanish) when visiting Latin America. Our current president has made his share of gaffes. Should we cut them a little slack, or hold them to a higher standard when it comes to speaking errors? [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 23:38, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

==Yes==

Absolutely. People make slips like these all the time, and reasonable listeners know how to distinguish a simple slip from deliberate deceit. Slips and gaffes are practically inevitable in campaigns, with the long days, hectic schedules and minimal time for rest. What counts, then is the ability of readers/listeners to digest and interpret what's said fairly, and decide if it's a slip or something else. McCain has referred to the Czek Republic as Czekoslovakia a couple of times, and I'd write those off as slips. However, when he and Palin continue to insist that she was the entity behind the cancellation of Gravina Bridge project, despite the clear evidence to the contrary, that's not a slip anymore. That's plain and simple [[deceit]]. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:47, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Of course! Politicians are humans, and humans make mistakes. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

==No==
Well, I can't take the extreme side, and say that no mistakes are allowed. '''''But I do believe that we can learn a lot about a person from their gaffes''.'''

Obama, for instance, when saying that rural white voters "cling to their guns and religion" instead of supporting his pro-populist agenda, was revealing a very deep-seated bias against a lot of voters and their beliefs. When Bush made the mistake of saying that the US was not well-allied with other nations against the War on Terror, he spoke energetically about Poland, revealing a warm, deep confidence in them and in the British. When Howard Dean uses his brother to help spread hurtful words against McCain and his military contribution, you can learn a deep understanding of the Deans' disregard for just mentioning the topic. When Bush made numerous gaffes, confusing Iraq and Iran, for instance, he showed a narrow, provincial view of the region. Hillary Clinton talking about white supremacy in a NYC rally showed her level of opportunism and political contortion when fighting political opponents.

For these reasons, and many more, I think mistakes are excellent, and they help give a better understanding of what a candidate feels when they are un-scripted and un-censored. Does a mistake disqualify a candidate from office? Absolutely not. But does it make a difference? It sure does, and in many cases, it is very important to find that true meaning behind the spin.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:39, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?

2009-09-18T00:47:02Z

LincolnShuddered:

Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?

2009-09-18T00:46:45Z

LincolnShuddered: Created page with 'The Conservapedia logo, as I am sure you are all aware, proudly displays the flag of the United States. While this certainly reflects conservatism in the United States, it does l...'

Conservapedia:Debate Topics

2009-09-18T00:39:11Z

LincolnShuddered: /* Debates about Conservapedia */

'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''

(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)

==Philosophical Debates==
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia become the next Wikipedia, is this good or bad]]
# [[Debate:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim "there is no objective truth" also not an objective truth?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]
# [[Debate:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]
# [[Debate:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]
# [[Debate:Can any man live without some code of morality?]]
# [[Debate:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?]]
# [[Debate:Why is there something rather than nothing?]]
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]
# [[Debate:who created God?]]
# [[Debate: Why have conservatives let themselves get a bad name?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for God to be timeless?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible for man to live a moral life without religion?]]
# [[Debate: How do conservatives view the Open Source movement and software?]]
# [[Debate: At what point does "Human" life begin?]]

==Religious debates==
# [[Debate:Does God punish sinners for eternity?]]
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion?]]
# [[Debate:Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce?]]
# [[Debate:Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]
# [[Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]
# [[Debate:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]
# [[Debate:What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]
# [[Debate:Did God create evil?]]
# [[Debate:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]]
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]
# [[Debate:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?]]
# [[Debate:AntiSemitism]]
# [[Debate:Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]
# [[Debate:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]
# [[Debate:What is the relationship between religion and the human tendency to kill each other?]]
# [[Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]
# [[Debate:What is the Sabbath day?]]
# [[Debate:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?]]
# [[Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|Debate:If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]
# [[Debate:Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]
# [[Debate:Is religion morally wrong?]]
# [[Debate:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]
# [[Debate:Why the Bible|Debate:What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]
# [[Debate:Why should we be afraid of God?]]
# [[Debate:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]
# [[Debate:Antisemitism]]
# [[Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]
# [[Debate:Is "Coercive Interrogation" consistent with Christian Values?]]
# [[Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]
# [[Debate:Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Deism]]
# [[Debate:Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]
# [[Debate:Why is homosexuality so bad?]]
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]
# [[Debate:Would the Flood and Noah's Ark cause inbreeding?]]
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion?]]
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]
# [[Debate: Can Christianity exist without Apostles and Prophets?]]
# [[Debate: What do you think about the violence in the Bible?]]
# [[Debate: Could Christian denominations exist without the Catholic Church?]]
# [[Debate: Which version of the Bible should be used as the authoritative reference on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate: Should Christians celebrate Christmas?]]
#[[Debate:Either God is indecisive or the world's major religions have ALL got it wrong]]
#[[Debate:Creationist]]
#[[Debate:Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?]]
#[[Debate:Do ALL suicides go to hell?]]
#[[Debate:Epicurus' Trilemma]]
#[[Debate: Why does God care if we worship Him or not? Is it His ego?]]

==Historical debates==
# [[Debate:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]
# [[Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]
# [[Debate:Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]
# [[Debate:Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]
# [[Debate:Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation "As an institution"?]]

==Political debates==
# [[Debate:Does Abstinence Only Education help or hurt us?]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?]]
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]
# [[Debate:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain Declined?]]
# [[Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]
# [[Debate:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]
# [[Debate:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]
# [[Debate:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Define torture]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Debate:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]
# [[Debate:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]
# [[Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|Debate:If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]
# [[Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]
# [[Debate:Was world war inevitable?]]
# [[Debate:Does "free trade" increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?]]
# [[Debate:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]]
# [[Debate:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]
# [[Debate:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]
# [[Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?]]
# [[Debate:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]] See [[Michael New]]
# [[Debate:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]
# [[Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]
# [[Debate:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]
# [[Debate:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]
# [[Debate:Women in the Military?]]
# [[Debate:Should students learn a foreign language?]]
# [[Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Debate:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]
# [[Debate:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]
# [[Debate:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]
# [[Debate:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]
# [[Debate:Is President Bush good for America?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Iraq War a success?]]
# [[Debate:Does single sex schooling promotes homesexuality?|Debate:Does Single sex schooling promote homosexuality?]]
# [[Debate:Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]
# [[Debate:Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]
# [[Debate:What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]
# [[Debate:Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]
# [[Debate:Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]
# [[Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]
# [[Debate:Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]
# [[Debate:Define Civil War]]
# [[Debate:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]
# [[Debate:Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]
# [[Debate:Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]
# [[Debate:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]
# [[Debate:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]
# [[Debate:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]
# [[Debate:Third Party Debate]]
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]
# [[Debate:Does Republican equal conservative? Does Democrat equal liberal?]]
# [[Debate:Obama's preacher.]]
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]
# [[Debate:Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]
# [[Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama a Muslim?]]
# [[Debate:Was McCain's threat to pull out of the debates a political stunt?]]
# [[Debate: Are Cantonese people a non-Chinese ethnic group?]]
# [[Debate:If Obama Was Conservative]]
# [[Debate:What level of Gun Control is appropriate?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Bush administration's Conscience Rule a step forward or backward for U.S. Healthcare?]]
# [[Debate: Why do political views appear to be correlated with others?]]
#[[Debate:What should be America's policy toward Islam]]?
#[[Debate:Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?]]
#[[Debate:Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]]
#[[Debate:Is the 2009 Stimulus Plan the right approach, and if not what would be?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama being unfairly criticized, or is too much being expected of our new president?]]
# [[Is it possible to be conservative and know there is no possibility of there ever being a "God" and/or higher being?]]
# [[Debate:Is Obama an Atheist?]]

==Scientific debates==
# [[Debate:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|Debate:If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]
# [[Debate:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]
# [[Debate:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]
# [[Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]
# [[Debate:Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]
# [[Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]
# [[Debate:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]
# [[Debate:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]
# [[Debate:God, Earth and Global Warming]]
# [[Debate:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]
# [[Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|Debate:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]
# [[Debate:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]
# [[Debate:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]
# [[Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?|Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]
# [[Debate:Why are God's works always questioned?]]
# [[Debate:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Debate:Are there any elements of choice]]
# [[Debate:Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]
# [[Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]
# [[Debate:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]

==Debates about Conservapedia==
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]
# [[Debate:The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]
# [[Debate:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]
# [[Debate:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]
# [[Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]
# [[Debate:Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]
# [[Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]
# [[Debate:What exactly is Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Was the media attention needed?]]
# [[Debate:Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]
# [[Debate:Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]
# [[Debate:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics "When did Brahms live" or "Why did Monet paint grainstacks?"]]
# [[Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]
# [[Debate:Who deletes entire discussion items from here? And why?]]
# [[Debate:Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]
# [[Debate:Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]
# [[Debate:Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]
# [[Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]
# [[Debate:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]
# [[Debate:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]
# [[Debate:Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]
# [[Debate:Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]
# [[Debate:Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]
# [[Debate:Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]
# [[Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]
# [[Debate:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]
# [[Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]
# [[Debate:What will Conservapedia be like if Barack Obama wins the election?]]
# [[Debate:Which is more important, economic or social conservatism?]]
# [[Debate:Should the Conservapedia logo be changed?]]

==Funny, maybe?==

# [[Debate:Are cats just useless Dogs]]
# [[Debate:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]
# [[Debate:Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?]]
# [[Debate:Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]
# [[Debate: Does Harry Potter promote Satanic witchcraft?]]

==Other==
# [[Debate:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]
# [[Debate:Is Rap music torture?]]
# [[Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?]]
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]
# [[Debate:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]
# [[Debate:Mall Shootings]]
# [[Debate:Creationist]]
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]
# [[Debate:Does modern music negatively influence children]]
# [[Debate:Propaganda in childrens' television]]
# [[Debate:What Is Music?]]
#[[Debate:Why are there so few homosexual athletes]]

[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?

2009-09-18T00:36:04Z

LincolnShuddered: /* YES */

{{debate}}

== NO ==

It is very simple - Jesus was born to rescue us from the [[original sin]]. If there is no [[Adam]] and [[Eve]], there is no original sin. Hence the whole premise for Christianity will break down. So every true Christian should believe in creation account - literally. {{unsigned|Heffalump}}

Reply: So are you saying that all evolutionists deny original sin? Because Darwin didn't deny original sin. -Ethan

I think the nature of sin is one of the big different between creation and evolution.

Evolution doesn't really recognize sin, and see death and suffering as a part of nature and necessary process in evolution, to evolve to new species.

But bible says that death and suffering are because of sin, it is not what God wanted, and nothing nature and necessary about it.

I think Christians who still believe in evolution don't really realize the cruelty of evolution. 90% of a group have to die off in order for the rest of the 10& to "evolve".

God won't use death and suffering in His creation. And I think God is smart enough to make everything perfect in the beginning (just like what the bible says) instead of made a few amoebas and let them "evolve" over time.

For those of you who watched Dr. Kent Hovind's videos, I accept most of his views about this.[[User:Kmcheng|Kmcheng]] 16:54, 25 December 2008 (EST)

== YES ==

As humans are capable of believing two or more contradictory things, it entirely possible (and quite common) for someone who is truly a Christian to have a wrong view about parts of the Bible, including the parts that contradict [[evolution]]. So believing in evolution does not mean that you are not truly a Christian, even though you believe something quite anti-biblical. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:59, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

This is very difficult to answer. I agree with Mr. Rayment - probably yes. --[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 08:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

As said above. --[[User:UaSsAu|UaSsAu]] 08:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I don't understand. How can someone believe in two contradictory things? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:31, 16 March 2008 (EDT) Can you give me an example of some thing you contradictory you believe in? --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 18:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Most people who believe in two contradictory things don't realise that they believe in two contradictory things. They've never really thought through the implications of the things they believe to realise that there is a contradiction. That's not always true, though. Sometimes people do realise that they believe in two contradictory things, but choose to keep believing both of them. This I cannot understand, and I can't recall any examples. More common, however, would be those that have realised that two of the things they believe in are contradictory, but don't yet know how to solve that contradiction. Many people have become Christians but continued to believe in evolution. At first, they don't see the contradiction (believing, for example, that God used evolution to create). Later, many of them realise that there is a contradiction (their compromise doesn't actually work), but don't know how to resolve that. Fortunately, many of them ultimately resolve the contradiction by rejecting evolution, but there's many others who haven't done that last step, or haven't reached that last step ''yet''.
::: But the point is, salvation is not dependent on the believer accepting every last detail of what the Bible says. Those described above who eventually come to reject evolution haven't finally become Christians at the point that they reject evolution; they were already Christians before that.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

That is a great explanation, Philip. That kind of opened my eyes. --[[User:Heffalump|Heffalump]] 14:14, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:As a theistic evolutionist I think that the story of creation is more of an allegory. As for Adam and Even and Original Sin I haven't really decided whether or not they literally existed and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, or if that is an allegory as well. To be honest, I'm more of a passive evolutionist, fully realizing that I could very well be wrong while being glad that I'll be forgiven if I am. I'm just glad that the creationism v. evolution isn't really central to Christianity. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 00:09, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
::That's a defeatist attitude (don't take it personally!). Today you are a "passive evolutionists", tomorrow a "passive liberal". When will you be a "passive atheist"? Sorry for kidding, but think about it. If you don't take Creation literally, everything else in the Bible can be an "allegory". There are many allegories, metaphors, parables in the Bible, but the account of Creation is not. Nowhere it mentions that it shouldn't be taken literally. I'm sure Mr.Rayment will explain it better. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 11:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::: On the type of text of the creation account, see [[Creation week]]. If there was no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin. If there is no original sin, then we don't need a Saviour to save us from it. Therefore we don't need Jesus. If there was no first Adam, there is no need of a last Adam. You're right; it's not central at all! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:34, 1 September 2008 (EDT)
As for this argument using the Adam and Eve story, this and the Theory of Evolution are not related. They are not alternatives of each other. The account of creation in the Bible is just that. It refers only to how things were created in the beginning. The Theory of Evolution concerns how life on earth has changed over time. If one is not satisfied with that argument, then perhaps this one: the Bible does not explain the means by which most forms of life were created by God. Is it not possible that God used evolution to further the variance of Earth's life forms? This idea is reminiscent of the ancient ways of explaining the universe: the apple falls from the tree because God wills it so. While this is still true, it has since been discovered that God created gravity, and this law of nature is most directly the cause of the apple's fall. It is most probable that God created evolution in the same way, to govern nature's life forms and the way that they change over time.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 21:55, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Sure, why not? Ironheart777 11:59 (PST) 25 november

: I missed answering this earlier, so I will now, even though JArneal is no longer with us (on Conservapedia, that is).
: The evolutionary and biblical stories ''are'' alternatives, because they are incompatible. No, it is ''not'' possible that God used evolution, given that evolution requires billions of years, whilst the Bible ''[[creation week|clearly and unambiguously]]'' records that creation took six ordinary days, among other differences.
: The Bible ''does'' record how most forms of life were created: to reproduce "''after their kind''", i.e. not by becoming another kind, as evolution claims.
: Other differences are the order of creation (the Bible has birds before reptiles, for example), and that there was no death before mankind.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:36, 17 March 2009 (EDT)

I am a Roman Catholic. In 1996, Pope John Paul II accepted evolution of our physical bodies by means of natural selection, as long as our souls were created by God, we can accept both Genesis and evolution. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?

2009-09-18T00:15:18Z

LincolnShuddered: /* No */

{{debate}}

==Yes==
Apparently, if we look at the [[Soviet Union]], [[Nazi Germany]] (the Nazis didn't fully persecute gays, see [[Homosexuality in Nazi Germany]] and [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]]), and the [[Roman Empire]], these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms. Also, in [[Britain]], [[Canada]], and [[Sweden]], known to be gay friendly countries, people lost their freedom to criticize gays. --[[User:KStanley|KStanley]] 13:35, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
==No==
Most totalitarian societies have outlawed homosexuality, including Iran's current regime.

KStanley, the Nazis murdered gays, as well as Jews, Slavs, Romani, and the mentally challenged. Murder is murder, no matter the number killed. Canada, Sweden, and the UK, although they are indeed more gay-friendly, are immensely less totalitarian than Nazi Germany and Iran. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Debate:Is homosexuality responsible for totalitarianism?

2009-09-18T00:10:44Z

LincolnShuddered: /* No */

{{debate}}

==Yes==
Apparently, if we look at the [[Soviet Union]], [[Nazi Germany]] (the Nazis didn't fully persecute gays, see [[Homosexuality in Nazi Germany]] and [[Homosexuals and the Holocaust]]), and the [[Roman Empire]], these two countries have homosexuality legal, but these countries lost their freedoms. Also, in [[Britain]], [[Canada]], and [[Sweden]], known to be gay friendly countries, people lost their freedom to criticize gays. --[[User:KStanley|KStanley]] 13:35, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
==No==
Most totalitarian societies have outlawed homosexuality, including Iran's current regime.

KStanley, the Nazis murdered gays, 'nuff said. Canada, Sweden, and the UK, although they are indeed more gay-friendly, are immensely less totalitarian than Nazi Germany and Iran. --[[LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

Talk:Essay:Born Outside the U.S.A.!

2009-09-17T23:52:24Z

LincolnShuddered:

==Initial queries==
Uh, I'm not sure about this one, honestly. By the way, do essays need to be true and verifiable, as the title claim is not yet? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 14:34, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: Addison, the essay and song do not mention a specific individual!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:03, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Come on....some humor please! An old saying, always true, is: "If the shoe fits, wear it." --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:11, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Your shameful attempts at dodging are as transparent as the water of a dead lake, Andy.
::And your song doesn't scan right. At all. "Born in the USA." Six syllables. "Born nowhere near the USA." Eight. Do you see the problem? Most of it doesn't rhyme, either. Keep your day job... haha, oh wait, you just live off your mom's money... nevermind. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:18, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Wow, TBaker, this entry really got under your skin!! Too bad your rebuttal is so pathetic. Go back to [[public school]] where they might nod their heads at your incoherence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:25, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::::Er... how is the rebuttal pathetic? Your song sucks, simply. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:28, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::: TBaker, you're complaining because the song gets under your skin. You wouldn't bother otherwise. The truth does sting for those who insist on denying it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, what an impressive encyclopedic entry. What high standards here at Conservapedia. Hey, is it ok for me to write an anti-Bush song or anti-Palin song?? I promise I won't ''mention a specific individual!!!''
*You guys are Conservative alright. No doubt about that. Hating all things blue and defending all things red. But don't you dare claim to be a Christian encyclopedia. [[User:AFlaily|AFlaily]] 17:20, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: "AFlaily", you can't even post in your own real name. See my response to TBaker above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Has anyone noticed that [[liberals]] always have absolutely no sense of humor, and lack the ability to laugh at themselves? All they seem to have is self-righteous indignation. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

:::We have a sense of humor. This simply isn't funny. It's juvenile. [[User:TBaker|TBaker]] 17:30, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::I also notice that [[liberals]] are always full of [[deceit]] as well, making and re-making socks, just to argue. And why do you Canadian liberal trolls care so much about United States matters, anyway? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::::: What's hilarious is how liberals delight so much in their own [[deceit]]. Go back to watching [[Comedy Central]], TBaker, if you even get cable television where you are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 3 February 2009 (EST)

==Scansion==
Honestly, setting aside the content for a moment, if you want to write a parody song that's fine by me. But at least do it right. Do a scanning run-through of "Born in the USA," not syllables and the types of poetic feet, and conform your novel ideas to those. Then it'll at least be clever. Now it reads like someone who doesn't read, or doesn't understand, the point of poetry.-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:33, 3 February 2009 (EST)

: You protest too much also, DavidSt. Stop resisting the truth and it won't sting so much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:35, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::I'm not disputing the truth. I'm disputing the form of its statement. Hold on, I'll write something about scansion....-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:36, 3 February 2009 (EST)
:::Okay. So scansion works like this. Tennyson's "Ulysses" scans in iambic pentameter, which means five syllabic pairs of WEAK/STRONG. Observe:where ' = strong, and _ = weak, "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield" = "_ ' _ ' _ ' _ ' _ '" So you need to find how Born in the USA scans, and pattern on that.-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:40, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Suggestion: to make a patternably scanned rhyme scheme, change the title to "Ain't Born in the USA." So the title and the critical phrase would scan " _ ' _ _ ' ' ' "-[[User:DavidSt|DavidSt]] 17:43, 3 February 2009 (EST)

== It's called humor... ==

Please everyone - you may disagree with the principle of the song (for me, "I can't even pronounce 'Pakistan'
And I also mispronounce the 'Taliban'" is the most incoherent, among other things) but to get angry over it is just childish. You could apply the same song to John McCain over his age or Sarah Palin over her gaffes (just to use two examples), and I'm sure the response wouldn't be nearly as large as this song over Barack Obama. Flawed? Yes. Something to get blood boiling? No way. If you want to make your own song about a public figure, I'm sure that would be fine too. If you don't like it, do something more constructive. [[User:SaltLake|SaltLake]] 18:40, 3 February 2009 (EST)

:Despite the fact that it's full of flaws, I find this essay funny. If we can't laugh at our political figures, what's the benefit of freedom of speech? I would like to point out though, the admins here are VERY quick to remove any humor targeted at a conservative figure, but hey, we can all have a good laugh every now and then. Humor has the benefit of subjective. --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 19:39, 3 February 2009 (EST)

It may not be perfect from a musical or lyrical standpoint, but as parody, its ''brilliant''. I'd suggest Mr. Schlafly submit something to 'Weird' Al Yankovic, but he's probably never do a song that parodies Obama or any leftie. (I should add that I really have no idea what 'Weird' Al's politics are. He's done a few issue-oriented songs, but about things like music-downloading.) [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 20:02, 3 February 2009 (EST)

:This is absolute genius!! --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:05, 3 February 2009 (EST)
::Mr. Schlafly, I knew Weird Al, I worked with Weird Al, Weird Al was my friend. Mr. Sclafly, you're no Weird Al. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 23:22, 3 February 2009 (EST)

I thought it was pretty funny, myself. Can others add songs? Perhaps something to the tune of "The Locomotion":

The liberals are saying that they’ve got their chance now,

(Come on baby, blow the nomination!)

They swear Barack’ll save us, if we give him a chance now,

(Come on baby, blow the nomination!)

He’s putting up a whole big batch of nominees,

It seems he overlooked their liabilities,

So come on, come on, blow the nomination, Big “B”!

You've gotta dodge your taxes,

You know that you’ll attract Barack,

If it’s ethics that you lack!

Woah woah...

Hey, Geithner was embarassing, that caused some pain now,

(Come on, baby, blow the nomination!)

The scandals keep on coming like a runaway train now,

(Come on, baby, blow the nomination!)

So Killefer’s a tax cheat, but hey, who knew?

You put up Daschle—how ‘bout that? He did it, too!

So come on, come on, blow the nomination, Big “B!"

Oh yeah...

Blow the nomination...

Blow the nomination...

Yay, yay, yay, yeah...

Your cabinet is shameful, it’s a huge disgrace, son!

(Come on baby, blow the nomination!)

Name another criminal, disgrace the nation!

(Come on baby, blow the nomination!)

There's never been a job that’s so hard to do,

As finding honest people wearing Democrat blue,

So come on, come on, blow the nomination, Big “B!”

;)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== Pronunciation ==

The President's pronunciation of Pakistan (PAH-kih-stahn) is closer to the native pronunciation than the common North American Anglophone pronunciation of (PACK-ih-stan). I see no need to enforce an incorrect pronunciation. Similar, but common, verbal mangling occurs in the place names of Hiroshima, Souix, and Thames. --[[User:LincolnShuddered|LincolnShuddered]]

User:LincolnShuddered

2009-06-24T03:03:54Z

LincolnShuddered:

Hello!

You have just entered LincolnShuddered's page!

A very important message to all who know what the following phrase means, especially you, Ronathan -

! ! ! I LIKE PRETZELS ! ! !

User:LincolnShuddered

2009-06-24T03:03:35Z

LincolnShuddered:

Hello!

You have just entered LincolnShuddered's page!

A very important message to all who know what the following phrase means, especially you, Ronathan -

!!! I LIKE PRETZELS !!!

User:LincolnShuddered

2009-06-24T03:03:15Z

LincolnShuddered: Created page with 'Hello! You have just entered LincolnShuddered's page! A very important message to all who know what the following phrase means, especially you, Ronathan - !!!I LIKE PRETZELS!...'

Hello!

You have just entered LincolnShuddered's page!

A very important message to all who know what the following phrase means, especially you, Ronathan -

!!!I LIKE PRETZELS!!!