Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bible

2011-03-27T16:46:57Z

MahmoudAlzwarii: Undo revision 859235 by Aschlafly (talk)

{{Wikiproject Religion}}
{{protect|MountainDew}}

[[Talk:Bible/Archive 1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Bible/Archive 2|Archive 2]]

==What the serpent said==
In Genesis 3:1, the serpent questions what God said concerning the tree of life. "Com'on, Eve...did God really say you can't eat from that tree?" One can transliterate this verse any way they want, but the meaning remains the same: Satan did not attack God personally, but he attacked His word, questioning what He said, and trying to make Eve question it too, which she ultimately did.

Unfortunately, the situation today regarding the Bible is pretty much the same, and it caused some heated debates here. This article is about the description and history of the Bible, nothing more. Textual criticism belongs in a separate article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==''La'' or ''Ta''==
Look, Karajou. Let's be reasonable about this. The fact is that ''la'' is not a definite article in Greek. Not in Ancient Greek, not in Koine Greek and not in Modern Greek. If you do a Google search of [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22definite+article%22+Greek "definite article" Greek], you'll get dozens of pages that all show the exact same declension. Or go and look it up in a dictionary or grammar. ''Biblia'' is neuter plural, thus the correct article is ''ta'' - ton biblion, ta biblia.

This is not a question of doctrine or scripture or exegesis or anything. It is a simple question of what the definite article is in Greek. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 16:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:I agree with you as to the definite article in Greek, and I do agree with you on being reasonable. If the term ''ta biblia'' was used in the 2nd century AD to describe the books of the Bible as a whole, I most certainly will change the article to reflect that. I am going to hit the books tomorrow at MTSU, and I will go through many works by experts in ancient languages (the term has to be 2nd century Greek, not 20th century Greek); the results of which and where they came from will be posted. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:28, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
::That sounds like a lot of work for one entirely uncontroversial detail. Just look it up in in '''A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature''' by Friedrich Blass ''et.al.'', or '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek''' by James Hope Moulton ''et.al.'' [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 11:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, since you researched it, I'm going to post the info immediately. All I need now is the page numbers of the books where they are located (as per MLA), plus publisher and date published for the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Very well, if you insist. They're in my office, and it's after hours here. I'll get them for you sometime tomorrow or the day after that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 12:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Still waiting on the page numbers. I found the publishers, and I used the American published version of the Blass work as the source. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:24, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go:

<blockquote>Moulton, James Hope. '''A Grammar of New Testament Greek'''. Wilbert Francis Howard, ed. Vol 2. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920. P. 117.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Blass, Friedrich and A. Debrunner. '''Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch.''' Friedrich Rehkopf, ed. 14th edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976. §249-276.</blockquote>

<blockquote>Bauer, Walter. '''Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Scriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Litteratur'''. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, eds. 6th edition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988. Heading βιβλίον, columns 281-82.</blockquote>

:Moulton has an excellent table of the inflections of the definite article. If more information is needed, Blass contains more than anyone would ever want to know about articles in Κοινὴ. And in case there is still doubt, Bauer shows quite clearly that the correct article for βιβλίον is το, hence τα βιβλία. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 15:06, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Much appreciated; in fact, the German titles have been included as well in the reference section. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:05, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I come in late on the discussion, probably after the fact, but the Greek plural for "the Scriptures" is probably much effected by the underlying current Hebrew. Though "the writings" (which is what the Scriptures means), is used for the 3rd compilation of the three part title, The Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, it is also used for all three together."HaKetuvim". This word is in the plural form, and is most naturaly translated, "the writings" or "the Scriptures", which would make its appearance, at a later stage, in the Greek "ta biblia". "ton Biblia" (ta biblia in plural) properly means "the book" reflecting a stage that the writing (graphe) was no longer on scrolls (megilah). The word, and the way behind it, was taken from the city of Biblos (the ancient Geval) on the coast of what is now Lebanon where the book form came to be as opposed to the previous scroll form. There was another Hebrew word then in use for the whole Old Testament as well as "ketuvim". This is the word "Mikr'a", which properly means "reading". The frequent use of the word Scriptures in the New Testament probably reflects the Hebrew underlying HaKetuvim, which itself denoted some sort of closed canon of what was considered Holy Writings. The Old Testament that we know

Just a comment on the Greek words now no longer in contention "La" or "Ta", I don't really know what fed into the idea of "La" (which is not Greek}, but "La" does mean something ''in Hebrew'' and does possibly bear on the original discussion. "La"( which is the normal contraction of Le (to) and Ha (the), in front of Scriptures means "to the Scriptures" or "pertaining to the Scriptures"[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 08:22, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==Article Name==
This name of this article should be The Holy Bible. [[User:Epicon|Epicon]] 02:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== New American Standard Bible ==

Who created the NASB? The Catholic Church[http://www.bible-researcher.com/nab.html] or the Lockman foundation?[[User_talk:Ymmotrojam#New_American_Standard_Version|Discussion on this matter]]. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 13:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:[http://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm This] also makes for interesting perusal [[User:Fox|Fox]] 13:40, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I didn't realise there were 2 New American Bibles (''Standard'' and Catholic). [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:56, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

==Request SysOp==
Would it be possible, and agreable, to add another translation/version to the list currently held on the page? The version I would like to propose adding is the [[Complete Jewish Bible]], which is the version used by the majority of [[Messianic Judaism|Messianic Jews]]. Some brief blurbs can be seen [http://www.onlinebible.org/html/eng/bible-info/complete-jewish-bible.html here] and [http://www.messianicjewish.net/jntp/complete-jewish-bible.html here]. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 10:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Concordia Self Study Bible ==

Please add [[Concordia Self Study Bible]] to version. [[User:FunnyBoy|FunnyBoy]] 23:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

== Changes Needed ==
The article appears to be locked, so here's some changes that need to be made:
* Intro paragraph: Assumes every Bible adheres to the Palestinian canon; some do not. Some sects have three parts to their Bible: The OT, the Apocrypha, and the NT. Some have an OT, an NT, and an Appendix. Some have a larger OT than others.
* The Old Testament: Again, assumes Palestinian canon. The Tanakh is not the same thing as the Old Testament; it coincides with the OT of some sects, but it is a subset of the OT of other sets.
* Tyndale: Says that Tyndale's translation led "finally to the KJV." Since there have been many revisions/new translations using the KJV as a base, one might say that the Tyndale stream has not yet reached its end. Where it will finally lead, no one knows. Recent Bibles claiming a Tyndale genealogy include the NRSV and the ESV.
* KJV: The "Textus Receptus" was not a translation (except for a few portions of Rev backtranslated from Latin), and it is arguable whether a Textus Receptus even existed at that time.
* KJV: The possessive form of it should be its.
* KJV: Shakespeare did not use the KJV throughout most of his life, and it is doubtful that he used it very much near the end. He would've used the Geneva or Bishop's Bibles.
* KJV: Milton probably used the Geneva, not the KJV.
* KJV: Ref number 5 is a broken link. Suggest removing it until a source for the quote can be found.
--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 09:59, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Regarding your first two points, I think as it stands the current article is specifically about the [[Christian Bible]]. We Jews, of course also use the term ''the Bible'' to refer to our own scriptures (needless to say, exclusive of the NT).

:It's a matter of terminology. Christians say ''the Bible'' meaning OT + NT. Jews say ''the Bible'' and mean a different, but mostly overlapping set of "books". The Judeo-Christian heritage is based heavily on the first five books of the Bible. Christian study materials for young children (see [[Sunday School]]) draw heavily on Old Testament stories: Creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the flood, Moses in the bulrushes & leading the people of God to freedom, etc. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:10, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

:Ignoring the role of the Reformation in redefining the canon is rather misleading; a niave reader would assume that the Vulgate was correctly defined by the opening paragraph as having those books and no others. [[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 22:10, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

== Best-selling book? ==

This comment, in the first paragraph of the article, really trivializes the Bible. The Bible is not a consumer good, OK? Please remove that comment. [[User:Andy|Andy]] 09:49, 17 November 2007 (EST)
:No. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:20, 17 November 2007 (EST)

== Please remove categories ==

Please remove categories ''religion'' and ''Book of Worship'', as they are supercategories of ''bible''. Also, if you could change the format to <nowiki>[[Category:Bible|*]]</nowiki> so that bible appears at the top of the list of that category. Thanks. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 12:54, 8 January 2008 (EST)

== Suggestions ==
As per TerryH's ideas regarding film adaptations (See my talk page for that.), I feel we should list the film adaptations of the Bible. Also, another English Bible, and the one I use: [www.skepticsannotatedbible.com The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]. Surely, it can't hurt to list that as well, can it? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:07, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:I think we should stick to listing versions with credibility. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:50, 1 March 2008 (EST)
::With what respect is due, Philip J. Rayment, I believe that the King James Version of the Holy Bible is, in fact, a version with credibility. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:01, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::: Oh come on! You know full well I was talking about the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, not the AV itself. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:10, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Original version of this made no sense. In any case, Philip, do you have an issue with annotations? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:58, 4 March 2008 (EST)
::::: With ''those'' annotations, yes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:42, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::What is your issue? Are they factually incorrect, or do you simply disagree with the opinion presented? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 00:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: More like logically fallacious. Here's an analysis of a few from Genesis 1[http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html]:
:::::::* "''(1:1-2:3) The Genesis 1 account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science.''": This is really a case saying "My view is right, your's is different, so yours is wrong". That's the fallacy of begging the question. The same applies to the next two points for the same verses, so I'll skip them.
:::::::* "''(1:3-5, 14-19) ... God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day''": So? Is this trying to claim that God cannot make light by any other means? Given that even us humans can, this is a ludicrous claim.
:::::::* "''And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them?''": Quite easily. To mark the days you need a rotating Earth and a source of light. The account already mentions that there was a source of light, so what's the problem?
:::::::* "''God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament. This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters.''": The Bible says nothing about a "solid firmament". This is an invention, probably due to a misunderstanding of what the Hebrew for "firmament" means. It has nothing to do with "firmness".
:::::::* "''(1:11-13) ... Plants are made on the third day before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes ''": So? There's two answers to this. First, there was already ''light'', and that's what the plants need, not the sun specifically. Second, they had to survive 24 hours without the sun! Wow! How long do the Skeptics think a plant can survive without light?
::::::: That's enough to give you an idea. I skipped a few, mainly because the explanations would have been a bit longer. But essentially, they've said ''nothing'' accurate in those first few. The annotations have no credibility.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::I might take you seriously if you cited a single fallacy among those, Philip. But, in the interest of fairness, I'll go through and criticise your answers.
:::::::: 1: Yes. It goes against the way things are shown to have happened. How is that fallicious?
:::::::: 2: For one, humans can't, our glorious creations can. For two, yes, that's exactly what it is claiming.
:::::::: 3: No, it says that there was light, not a source of light-- Unless of course you count Yahweh.
:::::::: 4: Then pray tell, what does firmament mean?
:::::::: 5: Not very long. You see, Philip, plants use sunlight in combination with the chloroform in their leaves or needles to create a type of sugar which they use for food. Without this, they'll die rather quickly.
:::::::: Now then, can you please cite something that is actually a logical fallacy, complete with a mention of what logical fallacy it is? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::: 1. The Bible says it happened one way. Evolutionists say it happened another way. You have two competing accounts, and you are judging the veracity of one account (the biblical one) by comparing it to the other account (the evolutionary one). That is, as I said, the fallacy of begging the question.
::::::::: 2. Humans ''can''. Yes, they have to use tools or "their creations" to do so, but they can. And even if we couldn't, it doesn't follow that God couldn't.
::::::::: 3. If there is light, there must be a source of light, even if that is God Himself.
::::::::: 4. You don't know? How about doing a bit of proper research, instead of just reading Skeptic rubbish?
::::::::: 5. How long is "not very long"? Less than 24 hours?
::::::::: I did name a logical fallacy, in the first one. Most of the rest would fall under Red Herrings, or Excluded Middles.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:23, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: 1. One is science, supported by years upon years of research, and the other is religion, supported by a book written by bronze agers.
:::::::::: 2. Of course, right. Deus ex machina. Arguing against the powers of your deity is futile.
:::::::::: 3. Indeed, unless of course we are to interpret the verse as your God creating the concept of light.
:::::::::: 4. Tsk, tsk. It is not my job to define your terms.
:::::::::: 5. Yes, Phil. Less than 24 hours.
:::::::::: ... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
:::::::::: Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)
(unindent)1. When two people disagree, the only way to get agreement is to argue from common ground. Arguing that the other's view is wrong because it doesn't fit with your own view is the fallacy of begging the question. I have pointed out above that the first point listed is a case of begging the question, because it is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit with the evolutionary view. Yet your answer, that one (evolution) is science supported by much research, and the other (creation) is based a book written by primitive people, is not an argument from common ground, but from ''claims'' of evolutionists. That is, the claims that evolution is science and is supported by much research ''are not facts, but evolutionary arguments''! The same applies to your claim about the Bible. So your attempted rebuttal of my claim that the argument is fallacious because it begs the question also ''begs the question''!

2. Your reply is to try and mock because you have no argument. As you have no argument, you've effectively conceded that the Skeptic argument is invalid.

3. Even if it ''could'' be interpreted that way, it doesn't rule out that it ''can'' be read another way, so the argument fails. Proposing another possible way of understanding something does not mean that the first way is wrong, yet the skeptic argument ''requires'' the first way to be wrong.

4. If you are going to make the claim (which you are implicitly doing by endorsing the Skeptic claim), then yes, it is ''your'' job to justify the claim. We are not talking about ''my terms'', but about the correct meaning of a Hebrew word. You (implicitly) claim it to be one thing, so the onus is on you to substantiate that claim, not on me to refute it.

5. I will remind you that I gave ''two'' answers to this one. That is, two ''independent'' answers. So answering one still leaves the other to be answered before the claim is substantiated. But as for your attempt to refute ''one'' of the answers, [http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/life/stru/methusweb/index.html this site] indicates that "most plants [can't] live for more than ''a few days'' without at least some light" (my emphasis).

I wouldn't try and use the flat Earth argument if I were you. It doesn't show evolutionists in a particularly flattering light, given that they effectively ''invented'' the story to discredit creationists! (Read the [[Flat Earth]] article for more.)

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:1. So let me get this straight. One cannot possibly argue that the genesis account is wrong because it has no basis in science?
:2. The powers of a deity are unfalsifiable, therefore it is useless to argue against them.
:3. Oh. So it is your view that god literally created light-- Everywhere, of course, not in a specific location?
:4. Philly, philly. The crud I go through for you. "the vault of heaven; sky" is the definition I got for firmament. Which makes your original response entirely nonsensical.
:5. Most plants also would've had stored energy beforehand. A plant that had never been exposed to sunlight would not.
:Final: Let me get this straight. Evolutionists went back in time, prodded a bronze ager, and said "Psst... Did you know the Earth is flat?" [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:29, 6 March 2008 (EST)

:: 1. (Your question has an ambiguity, but I ''think'' I know which way you mean it.) No, that's not what I said, but yes, your statement is correct, because you are trying to use ''science'' outside its domain, i.e. determining unobservable, untestable past events.
:: 2. In a sense, that's true. That is, Skeptics keep complaining that the creation account is unfalsifiable, yet here we have the Skeptics trying to falsify it! But it's not totally true, because in this case there are arguments that could, ''in principle'', be made, such as arguing that the text does not allow for the explanation I gave. However, the text ''doesn't'' disallow the explanation, and you have no grounds for excluding it. You can't defend an argument by complaining that you have no way of defending it!
:: 3. Huh? It is biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that God created light. It is deducible from biblical teaching (and therefore my view) that the light came from a ''particular direction'' (which is not the same thins as "in a specific location").
:: 4. Okay, seeing as you've actually gone to the trouble of looking it up, I'll apologise for being misleading. Perhaps the idea of it being solid wasn't "invented" as such, as I think the idea of it being solid did arise inadvertently due to a misunderstanding or something like that. However, I was still correct in claiming that it doesn't mean "solid". Your definition "the vault of heaven" would most likely be a euphemism for "sky", the second part of your definition. In other words, it's still not something solid. Furthermore, anybody who's done a modicum of research on the subject should know that, and it's been pointed out before, so it doesn't excuse the Skeptics for using this at all. The best translation of the word is probably "expanse" ({{Bible ref|Genesis|1:2}}. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1650 here] for a detailed study of the issue.
:: 5. First, how do you know that God didn't create them with stored energy? That is presuming something that supports your case rather than seeing if there really is a problem. Second, it still ignores that I gave two independent answers, and you are only attempting to address one of them.
:: Did you read [[Flat Earth]]? Your answer indicates that you didn't, but then it wouldn't be the first time you've distorted something beyond recognition.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== Correction and authorship ==

I believe it is the council of Jamnia not Jemnia.

Also, a reference to what Paul says of scripture 2tim3:16-17 "all scripture is given by god..." and Peter 2Peter1:20-21 "holy men of god spoke as they were moved by the holy ghost" would amplify what the NT says itself about authorship. --[[User:Dale77|Dale77]] 14:33, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:I've fixed the spelling. Your suggestion sounds good. Could you propose some actual wording and say where you think it should go, then I (or someone else) can simply pop it in? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:38, 1 March 2008 (EST)

{{QuoteBox|2.1.4 Inspiration Although the old testament is written by many human authors, new testament authors claim that these men were writing under the inspiration of God. The apostle Paul states in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness". Similarly the apostle Peter states in 2 Peter 1:20-21 "knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."}}
{{unsigned|Dale77}}
:Done. I didn't know what Bible version you were quoting from, and the links default to the NIV, so I changed the quotes to that version. Thanks for the great suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== Violence ==
I'm thinking about adding Some Verses about violence in the bible like the Qu'ran page has.Does anyone disagree? {{unsigned|Gobber}}

:And why would you do that when this article does not cover themes? If you feel violence is a part of a story that should be addressed, then do so in the individual books or stories. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:29, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Authorship of Job ==

The article says that Moses wrote Job. I can't say that I've every heard that, and even if I have, I can't say that it's something that is universally agreed. What's the evidence for Mosaic authorship? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:03, 2 October 2008 (EDT)
:I am not aware of any direct link. I'm assuming the theory would be based on the idea that both are about equally old, although the Bible itself makes no statement or inference in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:49, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
==Looking for some advise, not sure where to ask==
I am trying to learn more about the early Church(es), and the process of Canonization of the bible, but the only sources I'm finding seem to be very "academic" in that "the bible was written by man" way, rather than the presumption that the bible is indeed holy. What I'm looking for is a good history on how and why the various books of the bible were included in the canon, (Nicene Council), but from a true Christian point of view. Can anyone recommend any books or authors who deal with this area?--[[User:JeanJacques|JeanJacques]] 16:07, 3 November 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.html here] for the Old Testament and [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html here] for the New Testament. That second one also recommends [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/canonout.html this]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:17, 3 November 2008 (EST)

== Sources ==

Would some one be able to provide links to the bible's sources? -Brargrar 7:49 11 February, 2009.
: ?
:* The Bible was written before there were hyperlinked documents.
:* Much if not all of the Bible was written by eyewitnesses, not by people using pre-existing documents.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:48, 10 February 2009 (EST)
::I not think that is completely true. Off the top my head, 2 Mc 2:23 clearly states that book itself is an abridgement of a lost five-volume work. The author of Jude in verses 14 and 15 cite a prophecy that is in the apocryphal ''Book of Enoch'' (The same Enoch from Gn 5:21-24).

::There are other references if you can call them that; throughout Bible authors either quote or refer to reader to lost books like ''Book of Jasher'' in Jos 10:13 and 2 Sm 1:18; ''Book of Wars of the Lord'' in Nm 21:14. The ''Book of Jubilees'' is quoted in Rom 2:29, 9:24, 4:13. ''Sirach/Ecclesiasticus'' is quoted Jas 1:19, Lk 1:52, and Mk 4:5, 16-17. There are countless others and study bibles will do a better job than me pointing out references.--[[User:Kencaesi|Kencaesi]] 17:46, 12 February 2009 (EST)

::: I did say "''much'' if not all", but yes, you've proved that it's not all. However, I'll point out that ''referring'' to another book is not the same as being based on it, and I think a number of such references are merely that—pointing out that more information can be found in other books. But some will remain as being sources. Nevertheless, ''much'' of the Bible would still be eyewitness accounts. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:55, 12 February 2009 (EST)

== error in article ==

The article states that the Bible has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" The complete Bible has only been translated into about 400 languages and the New Testament into about 700. There are still thousands of languages that the Bible has not been translated into. This article should also be expanded to include the work involved in translating the Bible. I have a large number of foreign language translations of the Bible and would like to help out on this page. --[[User:TedM|TedM]] 22:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

: Those 400-700 languages cover ... 99% of the world's population? Also, I think your numbers are on the low side.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: The numbers are a bit low, at least the NT one, it seems. [http://www.biblesociety.org/index.php?id=22 This site] lists complete translations being in 438 languages, and "Testaments" translations in 1,168 languages (apparently ''in addition to'' the 438). And yes, they would likely cover the vast majority of the world's population, but the claim that it has been translated into "nearly every language on Earth" is still an overstatement, as worded.
:: TedM, I've unlocked the page; it has been locked long enough.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:38, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

== Biblical Views ==

I would say I am proud not to have any preconceptions about religion, or the lack of it. With this spirit in mind, and a large amount of different educational viewpoints, I decided to read the bible. The overall message of the new testament is a good one (not so much with the old testament), that we should be kind and respect one another. But while this message is one we should all follow, certain things need to be stated. The bible isnt logical, as I've seen many people say. It has many contradictions, things which dont make coherent sence, and stories that can have many different interpritations. Can something about this please be said in the article, in the interest of fairness for all (i.e. the message of the bible). And please dont block me, flame me, or post stupid replys, and bear in mind I have read it, and i can cite opposing statements etc. Oh, and Mr Schlafly, I wouldnt object to a logical conversion attempt, if you agree to civil terms.

PS: I apologise for any bad spelling or grammer, I try my best but dyslexia isnt nice

--[[User:Unlikelyconvert|Unlikelyconvert]] 12:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Dear Unlikelyconvert, I would say that it is very difficult to say that one doesn't have any preconception about religion. I can't say that for myself. That is why I often pray for God to undeceive me of anything needing it. I remain a believer in Jesus Christ. There is a great deal in the Bible that seems to be self-contradictory, incoherent, etc. The more I go on in study and in life (I am now 71 years old), the more I see that these flaws are only apparent, with very deep and satisfying solutions. I am sure that if you really quest in the right place and the right way, you will be drawn by God to faith in Jesus Christ.[[User:BertSchlossberg|Bert Schlossberg]] 05:34, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

==Fixed again==
While I did not delete the recent edits of RJJ and Bert, it needed a slight re-arrangement away from a poor format that pulled some of it off-topic. This article is essentially in three parts: 1) a description of the Bible itself (Old and New Testaments and Apocrypha; 2) the authority of the Bible is religious and daily life; 3) a history of the Bible ''as a document'' only. Anything else, such as specific textual cricisms of different versions, should be addressed in stand-alone articles. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== Controversies ==

I have no objection to including the Evangelical version of Bible history, but it should be clearly labeled as such. The earlier part of the article clearly indicates there re multiple viewpoints--and the Evangelical/Fundamentalist one is not held by most Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc. I don't see any possible "synthetic" section that would a) assert Moses wrote key books and b) also assert that Moses did NOT write those books. So let's simply keep the theological assumptions clear; Mark Noll has written a lot about them. (My own background includes a lot of Bible study at Notre Dame and Yale, from two quite different perspectives.) [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 11:23, 24 May 2009 (EDT)
:If it's clearly stated that "so-and-so wrote this", then I have no problem with it, but the main details should be covered in separate articles. From my standpoint, this article and its structure should be about the three points addressed above, as well as respecting God's work as well. The pic I included of the Torah at the Western Wall should be included as well (or a similar one), as it does illustrate the reverence Jews have for it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:34, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

== I fixed the number of books in the OT ==
I changed
:Most Christians, Protestant and Catholic, agree on the books of the New Testament, but the Protestant Bible includes '''66''' books of the Old Testament
to read
:Most Christians, Protestant and Catholic, agree on the '''27''' books of the New Testament, but the Protestant Bible includes '''39''' books of the Old Testament ((by Rickswartzentrover)

:Good correction. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:25, 20 November 2009 (EST)

== Liberal Criticism of the Bible ==

Would it be ok to add the following section to the main page?

Liberals, atheists, and secularists frequently attack the Bible and Christians by selectively taking certain passages out of context. Such attacks are excellent examples of [[liberal deceit]] and fall apart in the face of honest, thoughtful investigation.

Particular favorites of liberals include passages they claim are sexist, such as "Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord." (Ephesians 5:22) or "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12). In reality, those passages reflect deliberate misunderstandings and mistranslations, often by liberals themselves. In the first example, for instance, the phrase "subordinate" would be more accurately translated from the Hebrew "לְהַכפִּיף" as "respectful and loving." Of course, even that might be a problem for liberal feminists.

Another group of passages liberals love to quote is those in which God appears to be violent or wrathful. For example, in Genesis 7:23 God causes a great flood which wipes the earth clean of sinners and evil by drowning the corrupt men who have perverted his vision for humanity. However, while liberals who believe in moral relativism may not understand, God was ensuring the future of humanity by destroying a 'false start' who betrayed his vision by engaging in all kinds of perversion and iniquity.

More importantly, since liberals do not accept that Jesus Christ came to redeem mankind for our sins, they do not understand that the perfection of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament and that the real Truth is His word. What this proves is that God is both stern and merciful; He punishes sinners for their crimes against Him, but also offers them a path to redemption through Christ.

== Weird typos & other issues in "Authority->Roman Catholic" ==

I was glancing at the article at noticed how that section contained odd misspellings ("bishop ov Rome", "Majesterium" instead of "Magisterium", "second comming", "regualtion" should be "regulation"), and there is an attempt to describe papal infallibility in an incorrect manner. Councils (such as Vatican I from which the papal infallibility dogma came) are considered infallible, but only two infallible decisions by a Pope have occurred to this date. It needs to be clarified that the infallible status of infallibility came from the First Vatican Council, not the Pope. Also, the Charismatic Movement is non-denominational. There seems to be a criticism woven into technical language on Scripture interpretation.

I see a lot of other sections with also-unusual typos ("Septuaginta" instead of "Septuagint").

This article is locked - here is my suggested replacement:

'''---BELOW THIS LINE---'''

The Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Churches, has a strong sense of the authority given to the Bishops by Christ to teach, interpret, defend the Faith and therefore to exercise the responsibility to interpret Scripture to the faithful.

Since Vatican II, there has been an increased effort to bring knowledge of Scripture to the laity, resulting in an increase of Scripture reading and study programs throughout the Church. This has been abetted by the non-denominational Charismatic Movement, which has had the effect of promoting individual appropriation of the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit, and with that, the devotional and intellectual use of Holy Scriptures.

However, the role of "Magisterium", that is the teaching authority of the Church, strongly sets limits to individual interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church understands that while the Magisterium is given to all the bishops, the definitive exercise is limited to one bishop - the bishop of Rome, the Pope. Further, it is believed that the Pope, when declaring dogma (teaching) ex-Cathedra (from the chair) speaks infallibly (on matters of faith and morals). This has happened twice since the dogma was defined in the First Vatican Council (Vatican I). In addition, Catholics believe that doctrine from Councils are also infallible.

Rather than hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture, Catholicism looks for "the meaning" and "the message" contained within, promoting the concept of "apostolic succession" - that the bishops are successors of the Apostles, with the successor of Peter, the Pope, as their leader. Interpretation of Scripture and Catholic Tradition by authorities result in such Catholic teachings as the prohibition of abortion."

'''---ABOVE THIS LINE---'''

-[[User:Danq|danq]] 23:25, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

Your revision looks pretty good to me![[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 23:40, 14 April 2010 (EDT)

== The Bible and Islam ==

There's a section here called "Authority of Bible in religious communities". I think it is worthwhile to note somewhere on the Bible page that Islam considers many Biblical characters to be prophets: Abraham and Jesus, for example, but also people such as Adam, Noah, and Mary (mother of Jesus). This is useful information for people considering how to talk about Scripture with Muslims.

== Can we mark this article as unconfirmed? ==

Since it's like, fake and stuff?
----

Talk:Bible

2011-03-27T03:18:29Z

MahmoudAlzwarii: /* Can we mark this article as unconfirmed? */ new section

Talk:Liberal

2011-03-27T03:17:01Z

MahmoudAlzwarii: /* Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country? */ new section

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 


== Differences between liberals and democrats ==
These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.

'''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)

'''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)

'''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)

'''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)

'''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)

'''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)

'''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article.

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::Odd that a "new" editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)

:::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)

It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)

Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)
:You are close-minded. When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking. We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us? I think deep down inside ''you fear us'' by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)

I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my "side" hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.
[[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

(Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.

:Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Would like to query the "opposition to the Patriot Act" and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it?

Oh and that "call someone a professor whether they are or not" thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.

:Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you "won't be back." I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''"Everything you post must be true and verifiable."'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?
::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal

:::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)

::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?

::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.
::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)
:::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:
:::: "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called "progress" away from, or "reform" of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref>, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons."
:::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)

:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed "American Liberalism" or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.

== First few sentences ==
I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)
:A definition is included in the first few sentences, "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.". It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, "There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing." either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)

:::You write, "My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals." What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them "moderates". Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.

:::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)

::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as "1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights". Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216

The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards":
*An Islamic terrorist
*a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)
*A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.
*An Ultra-Orthodox Jew
*J Edgar Hoover
*A member of the Flat Earth Society
*A member of the Ku Klux Klan
*Adolf Hitler
*Robert Mugabe
*General Francisco Franco

Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)
I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean "universal healthcare," it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar.
While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)
:My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)
::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils.

:::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference "between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils"? Right now, the article defines a liberal as "someone who rejects logical and biblical standards"; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)

We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of "liberal" needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.
:Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define "liberal" more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)

::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as "partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order." I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)

Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)

:Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for "peace", while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.

:We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.)

:You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you "expand" that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some "tendencies" - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, "A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons." --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)

:::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about "American liberalism."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)

::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)

== First few sentences (Edit Break) ==

I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me:

"Tools:
Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism
Traits:
Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining"

You describe liberals as "uncharitable" but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?

Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.

The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.
On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)

: This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule.

: Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so "harping" on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them?
You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job?
:The mere fact that you think "liberal=fair" pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think "liberal=fair," then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]](admin)[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)
:: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:: The "fair" approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not "fair" in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. "Equality" is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism "succesful"? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is "interference" in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]
::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

:::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining "fair" as "liberal," you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything "fair" about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called "wiki-lawyering". Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word "is" was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because "rejecting biblical standards" could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that "liberals generally support". The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account "liberal deceit", "liberal style", ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)

: Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.

: Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]

==Reversion==

Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)

:I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==

At the end of the first paragraph, the article states "and in Europe even socialistic." While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove "in Europe" because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

:How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)
::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==
Sorry if I made this "thing" wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)

: I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==

As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.

:No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)

== Introductory remarks ==

Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.

That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:
:::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.

It is, of course, your "encyclopedia", not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.)

With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)

== Child porn? ==

Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)
::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing — it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::"Pornography and child porn are two different things" ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&diff=prev&oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) "support" child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or "defending") child porn.
:::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

== A few minor things ==

The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word "liberal". Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.

Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:

A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?

Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: "The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ...."

'':And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''''

:The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article. I agree that they probably dispute it. Look at the title of the list it is in. A liberal would not support that quote. So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

'''Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian.''' --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:NPOV = ? I am a supporter of the Conservative Party.

:I am not arguing with the statement at this time. I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::Re-wording and placement are subjective, right? Since Conservapedia is an ''American'' encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric. What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K. That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language. I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

:::My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism. It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list. I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think. I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

::::That would be super, Josh!

::::I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)

==[[Classical liberalism]]==

Can we say something about the "good" kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when "conservative" foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)

== Liberal corporations section proposal ==

I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.

:That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal. Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)

::Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.

:::It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)

== Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country? ==

If this country was not founded on christianity? --[[User:MahmoudAlzwarii|MahmoudAlzwarii]] 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)