Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Jaundice

2007-06-03T00:15:02Z

MatteeNeutra: added a few more bits and pieces

'''Jaundice''' is yellowing of the [[skin]], [[eyes]] and mucous membranes.

This condition can be a symptom of [[hepatitis]] infection, an increase in the breakdown of [[Red blood cell|red blood cells]] (such as [[malaria]]) or an inability to drain [[bile]] from the biliary system.

Lemonade

2007-05-23T15:53:16Z

MatteeNeutra:

Lemonade is a sweet beverage composed of sugar, lemon juice, and water. Modern lemonades are [[carbonated]] and can be clear (e.g. Sprite or R Whites) or cloudy (e.g. traditional lemonades). Lemonade is usually served chilled, often over ice and sometimes with a slice of [[lemon]].

As well as being drunk on its own, lemonade can be mixed with [[beer]] to make a [[shandy]], is added to wine and other ingredients to make the [[Spanish]] drink Sangria and can be served as a mixer with [[spirits]].

[[Category:Food and drink]]

Global warming

2007-05-22T22:45:24Z

MatteeNeutra: added a small amount to the first paragraph

'''Global warming''' is the term ascribed to an increase in the [[global mean temperature]]. Average [[Earth]] surface air temperature has risen by 1.4oC since 1905. 0.6oC of that warming has occured since 1975.
<ref>Hansen's group at the Goddard Institute wrote, "Global warming is now 0.6 °C [1.0 °F] in the past three decades and 0.8 °C [1.4 °F] in the past century." http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/</ref>

Assessments by the [[United Nations]] promote the view that most of the warming since around 1850 is likely human-caused. In February, 2007, the [[IPCC|Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], a body of scientists<ref>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0704280477apr29,1,4275902.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed</ref> established by the [[United Nations]], released their fourth assessment report on climate change. That report concluded that most of recent global warming was "very likely" caused by human activity<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm</ref>. It says that increases in atmospheric concentrations of [[greenhouse gas]]es cause warming.

According to evolutionary scientists, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see [[climate cycles]]). Some scientists, including [[Richard Lindzen]] of [[MIT]], [[Sallie Baliunas]] of [[Harvard]] and [[Fred Singer]] (independent), say that the recent warming could be part of another natural cycle.

==The Hockey Stick Reconstruction==
[[Image:Hockey stick chart ipcc.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The Hockey Stick graph in 2001 IPCC report shows blue proxy values along the "shaft" with red instrumental values superimposed as the "blade"]]
One of the main arguments for anthropogenic global warming during the 3rd IPCC report was a temperature reconstruction done by climatologist Michael Mann. The resulting graph of the Northern Hemisphere temperature is shaped like a hockey stick, and it is used as evidence for the unusualness of the earth's temperature in the past few decades. However, Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick later discovered a serious flaw in the statistical methods used to construct the hockey stick graph. Because of this, the 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC included several different temperature reconstruction methods instead of favoring just one hypothesis.

==Natural variability of the climate system==
Evolutionary scientists who believe in global warming think that the Earth has experienced numerous [[Ice Age|ice age]]s over two million years, during which global temperatures dropped approximately 6 degrees Celsius and then returned to normal. The frigid temperatures allowed ice sheets to expand southward, covering much of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], and [[North America]]. The cooling associated with ice ages is gradual, while the terminations are relatively rapid. However, even the rapid terminations of ice ages take centuries to millennia.

==Global Warming on other Planets==

Since the [[Viking spacecraft]] reached [[Mars]] in the 1970s until recent readings were taken, the average temperature on Mars has risen 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit just as the average temperature on the earth has risen. Since human industrialization is clearly not to blame for the change on Mars, other causes are being considered. One possibility is that dust storms are changing the albedo of the planet, allowing it to warm, while another possibility is that solar variations from the sun are causing the warming.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html</ref><ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977</ref>

Recently, it has also been found that similar to the Earth and Mars, [[Neptune]] is also undergoing global warming. Measurements taken at the Lowell observatory in [[Arizona]] have shown an increase in Neptune's brightness and temperature since 1980 following the same pattern seen on Earth and Mars. The researchers who discovered this warming suggest there may be a correlation between the warming and solar variations.<ref>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007.../2006GL028764.shtml</ref>

[[Pluto]] has also been found to be undergoing global warming. The overall temperature increase on Pluto has been greater than that on the earth.<ref>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html</ref>

==Politics of global warming==

The global average surface temperature warmed about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) over the second half of the 20th Century, and to some the warming appears to be related to increases in [[carbon dioxide]] and other greenhouse gases. The possibility of adverse consequences has become a major concern for environmentalists.

Assessments of climate science by the [[United Nations]] (see [[IPCC]] - ''Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'')
have claimed that scientists are 90% sure that over 50% of the observed global warming in recent decades is human-caused, and that continued global warming should be expected over at least the next century. ''Science'' published a literature search by Naomi Oreskes concluding that "scientific consensus" supports the IPCC reports. <ref>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686]</ref>

Several prominent scientists have pointed out the [[politicized science]] of the UN's assessment methods. The scientific reports are submitted to a panel of representatives appointed by each country in the IPCC. Several scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have complained about their work being misrepresented by the U.N.

58% of the 279 climate scientists working at US federal agences who responded to a survey by The Union of Concerned Scientists reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years and that they had experienced at least one of these constraints:
* “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications.
* Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”.
* Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings.
* “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”.
* “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”.
* “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.”

However, those who believe that either global warming is not a real phenomenon or that humanity's contribution to it has been overstated have made similar complaints. The UCS states in its report about the IPCC <ref> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/the-ipcc.html </ref>
<blockquote>Climate contrarians frequently claim that the IPCC produces politically motivated reports that show only one side of the issues. Given the many stages at which experts from across the political and scientific spectrum are included in the process, however, this is a difficult position to defend. </blockquote>
<blockquote> Furthermore, according to IPCC principles, lead authors are “required to record views in the text which are scientifically or technically valid, even if they cannot be reconciled with a consensus view.”</blockquote>

There is widely held belief among the American public that global warming is a reality. A poll conducted March 11-14 of 2007 found that the majority of the American public (59%) believes we are already seeing the effects of global warming, an additional 3% and 8% respectively believe they will see the effects with in a few years or within their lifetime, and 19% believe that global warming will be seen, not in their lifetime, but in future generations—only a small minority (8%) believe that global warming will never happen. <ref>Poling report on Gallup poll for March 11-14, 2007[http://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm]</ref>.

The fossil-fuel industry could be adversely affected by global warming legislation. Exxon-Mobil has been accused of supporting research on global warming, and some of that has differed from conventional wisdom. <ref>http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf</ref> <ref>http://www.net.org/warming/skeptic.vtml </ref> <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/listorganizations.php</ref>.

== Scientists ==

[[Image:Rogerrevelle.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Roger Revelle]]

{|
| valign="top" width="35%"|
* [[Roger Revelle]]
* [[Achim Steiner]]
* [[Fred Singer]]
* [[Richard Lindzen]]
* [[Sallie Baliunas]]
* [[Lonnie Thompson]]
| valign="top" width="33%"|
* [[James E. Hansen]]
* [[Michael Mann]]
* [[Charles Keeling]]
* [[Edwin A. Hernández-Delgado]]
|}

==See Also==
*[http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/global-temperature-not-exist.pdf Does a global temperature exist?], ''Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics'', June 2007.
*[http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html The appliance of science] by Mike Hulme.
*[http://www.climatecrisis.net/ ''An Inconvenient Truth''], Film by [[Al Gore]]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455&q=great+global+warming+swindle ''The Great Global Warming Swindle'' - Documentary Film]
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/iris-effect.pdf Climate Sensitivity and Observed Negative Feedbacks], lecture by Richard Lindzen and Roberto Rondanelli.
*[http://www.physics.harvard.edu/%7Emotl/lindzen-nature-of-arguments.pdf Nature of Arguments for Anthropogenic Global Warming], by Richard Lindzen
*[http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=42 ''Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warmings's Unfinished Debate'', by S. Fred Singer]
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus] - [[Richard S. Lindzen]], Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=47&articleID=604 "Should We Have Acted Thirty Years Ago to Prevent Climate Change?", by Randall G. Holcombe].
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=296 "After Kyoto: A Global Scramble for Advantage," by Bruce Yandle].
*[http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030825-090130-5881r.htm Global warming smear targets]
*[http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=2319 The physical evidence of earth's unstoppable 1,500-year climate cycle]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1714 "Is There a Basis for Global Warming Alarm?", by Richard Lindzen]
*[http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=5 "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn’t Telling Us"]
*[http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181 Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming]
*[http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm Fighting the Hoax]

==Critique of the Hokey Stick Reconstruction==
*[http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html The Decay of the Hockey Stick by Von Storch] published on the journal ''Nature'''s blog, May 3, 2007.
*[http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/ A Global Warming Bombshell] by Richard A. Muller, ''Technology Review'' , Oct. 2004; calls into question famous graph by [[Michael Mann]]
*[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/306/5696/679 Reconstructing Past Climate from Noisy Data] by Hans von Storch, Eduardo Zorita, Julie M. Jones, Yegor Dimitriev, Fidel González-Rouco, Simon F. B. Tett, ''Science'' magazine, 22 October 2004.

==References==

<references/>

[[category:earth science]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Politicization of science

2007-05-22T22:36:49Z

MatteeNeutra: I looked for a source for this but I could find no definitive link

'''Politicization of science''' occurs when interested parties assert a certain fact or principle as true, even when it remains unproven or is even manifestly untrue.

The best documented case in American history is the banning of [[DDT]] immediately after a hearing in which it was shown to be safe when used as directed. In small quantities, it can even be eaten by human beings - it's not a poison like arsenic or cyanide but it is accumulated in bodies through the food chain effecting especially birds. The new EPA administrator disregarded the hearing results and unilaterally banned DDT. The U.S. ban put pressure on foreign governments to stop using DDT for mosquito control and ultimately led to a worldwide rise in the number of malaria cases; thwarting efforts to control the spread of the disease (see [[Malaria epidemic]]). {{fact}}

Many other chemicals have been considered dangerous and banned for political reasons, often involving health scares. Also nuclear power and even the internal combustion engine have been targeted by partisans using [[junk science]].{{fact}}

==See Also==
[[Environmentalism]]

[[Intelligent Design]]

Atheism

2007-05-22T22:31:55Z

MatteeNeutra: removed a few statements as per the talk page

'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of any [[God]]. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]], [[Christopher Hitchens]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality, although they may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people. For instance, it may be claimed that events in the Bible itself even encourage immoral behavior, such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan, the stoning to death of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm those practicing homosexuality], poor treatment of women, and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] claim, however, that these objections to the goodness of God are invalid. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html</ref> <ref>http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</ref>

The study of morality outside of a theistic framework falls under the [[Philosophy| Philosophical]] topic of [[Ethics]]{{fact}}.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census], 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs . This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any particular religion, and as a result could enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man. Clearly, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. It is also possible some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will choose "other" instead of "no religion" on surveys. It is even possible that selecting a theistic religion does not mean a belief in God; a poll conducted in the [[United Kingdom]] in April 2006 indicated that 63% of Christians believed in a "God or higher spiritual force" and 14% did not<ref>http://www.communicateresearch.com/poll.php?id=77 Communicate Research poll for Premier Radio and the Evangelical Alliance (April 2006)</ref>.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref> <ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

However, cause does not necessarily mean any form of intelligence or God like being. God, according to atheists is a superfluous addition and completely unnecessary for the explanation of the universe.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Religious war

2007-05-22T22:23:21Z

MatteeNeutra: edited first paragraph

A '''religious war''' is a war started in the name of a certain [[religion]] usually against a differing and/or opposing religion. Such wars have occured since the formation of [[religion]] and, as with all wars, have led to bloodshed and suffering of not only the proponents of such wars, but of innocents as well.

==Examples of religious wars==

A notable example of a religious war, or more exactly a series of wars, is the [[Crusades]] of medieval Europe, started by [[Christians]] to take back [[Israel]] from Muslim control.

Almost all of [[Islam]]'s early expansion was due to [[Jihad]] and an attempt to forcefully spread their religion.

Not all examples are negative. [[Constantine]]'s civil war with [[Licinius]] was fought over Licinius' persecution of Christians. The war ended with Constantine's victory and the persecutions stopped. A [[Byzantine Empire|Byzantine]] victory against Varahran V of the Neo-Persian Empire forced him to end his policy of persecution against Christians as well.

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Religion]]

The Crusades

2007-05-22T15:30:19Z

MatteeNeutra: fixed some link problems

{{Middle Ages}}
[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning [[Crusader]]]]
The '''Crusades''' lasted 176 years from 1095 until 1271

The most famous military activity in the feudal period was the “Crusades”, a
series of wars covering nearly 200 years, from A.D. 1096-1291. Only the First
Crusade and to a lesser extent the Third Crusade were successful in terms of military goals. One of the
main purposes of the crusades was to make [[Jerusalem]] safe for [[Christian]]
pilgrimages. At the request of the Byzantine Emperor, who wished for a
mercenary force to aid his reconquest of his lands, in 1095 [[Pope Urban II]]
called for feudal [[knights]] to retake the [[Holy Land]] from the [[Seljuk Turks]]. The Seljuk Turks seemed almost invincible as fighters, having
conquered [[Asia Minor]] and even beating the once-mighty [[Byzantine Empire]] (due to treachery).
The Seljuk Turks ruled from the 1000s to the 1200s, and did particularly well under one particular ruler, [[Malik Shah]], who died in 1092. But some [[Muslims]]
were unhappy with being ruled by the Turks, and once Malik died, dissension in
the Islamic world grew.

The Byzantine emperor, [[Alexius Comnenus]], had inherited an empire that had
been decimated by Seljuk and Patzinak Turks and he asked the pope for mercenary
help to defeat the Muslims. He promised a reunion of the [[Eastern Orthodox Church]] and the [[Catholic Church]] and to give Byzantine lands (“[[fiefs]]”)
to victorious knights from the [[feudal]] west.

At the [[Council at Clermont]] in southern France, Pope Urban II gave a famous
speech. Promising [[absolution]] and assurance of salvation to anyone who died
in the crusade, he urged a huge crowd to protect Christian pilgrims from the
Turks. He demanded that all internal feuds end and he threatened
[[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally. Those who
decided to fight in the crusades were said to be “taking up the cross,” because
they would stitch small crosses onto their tunics.

At first [[Peter the Hermit]] answered the call of Pope Urban and led an
unprepared group of peasants in the first mission, which failed. But news of
its failure led to renewed determination by the Christians, and a well-equipped
religious mission led by the [[Normans]] was formed. This became known as the First
Crusade.

When the western forces reached [[Constantinople]] to join with Alexius’
soldiers, the western army was almost 20,000 men. It proceeded to capture
[[Nicaea]] in 1097, and went onward to Jerusalem despite intense fighting,
mostly between the various factions within the Crusade as opposed to with any
Muslim enemies and hardship.

In 1099 the First Crusade invaded and succeeded in capturing Jerusalem, and set
up four feudal kingdoms that would remain for nearly 100 years. However, the
Christian crusaders massacred the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and many other
towns in the process. But it was a huge military victory and Jerusalem was
temporarily made safe for the pilgrims.

A mixture of Christian spirituality and military adventure motivated the
participants in the Crusades like never before in history and perhaps never
since. Genovese Merchants participated also in the hope of undermining
Venice's trade links with Muslim [[Egypt]]. Many of the crusaders were acting to
advance the cause of Christianity. This was not necessarily true for all of
the crusaders. Criminals who fought were pardoned, and a crusader was exempt
from taxation from the time that he “took up the cross,” until he returned from
the war.

A '''Second Crusade''' in 1147-49 was a failure, owing to the French King's insistence
on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]]. In 1187 the Muslims
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.

'''The Third Crusade''' (1189-92) had the limited success of obtaining a truce from Saladin that
promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem. That Crusade was led by
the leaders of [[France]] and the [[Holy Roman Empire]] and [[King Richard]]
the Lion-Hearted of England. The first returned home after an argument with
Richard at Acre, and the second drowned; only King Richard saw the mission
through, and afterwards it took him years before he was able to return to his own land. (The story of [[Robin Hood]] uses this as a backdrop)

Two subsequent crusades were tragic. '''The Fourth Crusade''' (1202-04) Never reached
the Holy Land and ended with the crusaders’ sacking Constantinople — a Christian
City and the capital of the [[Byzantine Empire]] — wounding it forever and embittering the East against the West further than the previous Crusades had done.

A '''Children’s Crusade''' (1212) consisted of
peasants leading up to a thousand children on a mission of love to Jerusalem,
but the children were captured by Genovese merchants who sold them as
slaves to the Muslim powers of North Africa.

The later Crusades
saw a revival in religious motivation, indeed, '''the Fifth Crusade''' and the
Crusade of St. Louis both nearly succeeded in regaining Jerusalem by way of
attacking Egypt and failed only through the greed of men like [[Robert of Artois]].

It seems that the Christian armies lost sight of the Christian goals to bring and spread
love and Christianity along the way, got drunk with power and glory, and decided
to pillage towns and murder people (note that this is breaking many commandments
“thou shalt not murder.” “thou shalt not steal”), although this murder and
pillage did, in it's own perverse way, spread the faith through fear, and
focused instead on founding feudal states instead of the Catholic Theocracy
dreamed of by Diambert of Pisa, the second Patriarch of Jerusalem.

The Crusades went against many Christian teachings.

[[Category:History]]
[[category:crusades]]

New Testament

2007-05-22T15:26:28Z

MatteeNeutra:

{{Christianity}}

The '''New Testament''' is a collection of biblical books written by various authors between 45 AD and 100 AD, revolving around the life and work of [[Jesus]] of Nazareth and His apostles, as well as the history of the early church.

The books are traditionally classified into categories:

*The four [[Gospel]]s (literally "Good news"): [[Alleged Bible contradictions|varying]] accounts of the life and ministry of [[Jesus]], consisting of the gospels attributed to [[Saint Matthew|Matthew]], [[Mark]], [[Luke]], and [[John the Apostle|John]].

*[[The Acts of the Apostles]] (or just "Acts") (which J. B. Phillips evocatively called "The Young Church In Action,") which concerns the ministry of the Apostles after the death of Christ. It is similar in language and style to, and reads as a continuation of, the Gospel of [[Luke]].

*[[The Epistles]] (which J. B. Phillips called "Letters to Young Churches,") ''Romans'' through ''Jude'', consisting of fourteen letters attributed to St. Paul and seven by other writers including James, [[Saint Peter|Peter]], John, and Jude. The writer of Hebrews is unknown.

*[[The Book of Revelation]] (or just "Revelation,") the prophetic book which ends the New Testament. It is also known as "the Apocalypse" (Greek for 'revelation'). It is somewhat similar in style to the [[Old Testament]] book of [[Daniel]] (and indeed weaves common prophecy), and tells of the end of the world, including [[Armageddon]], Judgment Day, and the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven. Despite Jesus' thrice repeated promise in it that 'I shall come very soon', opinions vary as to whether it refers to imminent events set amid the then Roman Empire or to the far future.

As with the Old Testament, the chapter and verse divisions of the various books are not original, but were added in medieval times for greater understanding.

The oldest books in the New Testament are the letters of [[Paul]], or possibly the book of [[St. James the Less|James]].

== See also ==

*[[The Twelve Apostles]]
*[[Virgin Mary]]

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* Cross, C., ''Who Was Jesus?'' (Hodder & Stoughton, 1970)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* James, M. R., ''The Apocryphal New Testament'' (Clarendon, Oxford, 1953)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Lemesurier, P., ''The Armageddon Script'' (Element Books, 1981)
* Peake, A. S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Schonfield, H. J., ''The Authentic New Testament'' (Dobson, n.d.)
* Schonfield, H. J., ''The Passover Plot'' (Hutchinson, 1965)
* Schonfield, H. J., ''The Pentecost Revolution'' (Macdonald, 1974)
* Schonfield, H. J., ''Those Incredible Christians'' (Bernard Geis, New York, 1968)
* Vermes, G., ''Jesus the Jew'' (Collins, 1973)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]

Yahweh

2007-05-22T15:23:04Z

MatteeNeutra:

'''Yahweh''' is an Anglicized version of the Name of God, as spoken during the time of the [[Temple of Jerusalem|Temple]]. In the [[Hebrew]] written language, which often uses no written vowels, The Name is written ''[[Tetragrammaton|YHWH]]'', but never spoken.

However, because [[Jew]]s generally were forbidden by the [[Fifth Commandment]] to pronounce the sacred name, the vowels of ''Adonai'' (literally 'my lords') were normally inserted between its consonants, resulting in the name '[[Jehovah]]'. Reflecting the same taboo, the earlier English translations of the [[Bible]] replaced the name with the phrase 'the LORD'. Because [[Jesus]]' followers routinely called him ''adon'' ('boss', 'lord', which translated into the [[gospel]]s' [[Greek]] as ''kurios''), the two titles became confused in English, to the point where it became unclear whether the phrase 'the LORD' was referring to Jesus or to Yahweh.

==Sources==

* Armstrong, K., ''The Battle for God'' (Harper Perennial, 2000)
* Burrows, M., ''The Dead Sea Scrolls'' (Secker & Warburg, 1956)
* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* Cross, C., ''Who Was Jesus?'' (Hodder & Stoughton, 1970)
* Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N. A, ''The Bible Unearthed'' (The Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 2001)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* James, M. R., ''The Apocryphal New Testament'' (Clarendon, Oxford, 1953)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Lemesurier, P., ''The Armageddon Script'' (Element Books, 1981)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Powell Davies, A., ''The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls'' (Mentor Books, New York, 1956)
* Schonfield, H. J., ''The Passover Plot'' (Hutchinson, 1965)
* Schonfield, H. J., ''The Pentecost Revolution'' (Macdonald, 1974)
* Schonfield, H.J., ''Those Incredible Christians'' (Bernard Geis, New York, 1968)
* Vermes, G., ''The Dead Sea Scrolls in English'' (Penguin, 1968)
* Vermes, G., ''The Dead Sea Scrolls: Qumran in Perspective'' (Collins, 1977)
* Vermes, G., ''Jesus the Jew'' (Collins, 1973)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls

2007-05-22T15:12:55Z

MatteeNeutra: New page: I made a start at rewording some of this article. The rest also needs to be rewritten. As it stands it would appear that the article is merely copied (in the most part) word for word from ...

I made a start at rewording some of this article. The rest also needs to be rewritten. As it stands it would appear that the article is merely copied (in the most part) word for word from external sources! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:12, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Dead Sea Scrolls

2007-05-22T15:11:52Z

MatteeNeutra: Reworded first paragraph...the whole article consists of copy and paste's from external websites at the moment.

The first '''Dead Sea Scrolls''' to be found, were discovered by Bedouin shepards in 1947 who uncovered seven scrolls in a cave. In the following decade, further searches yielded many thousands of scroll fragments and there are currently approximately 850 such documents known to exist. A nearby habitation, known as Qumran, was also excavated in this time in an effort to identify the people who left the scrolls in the caves.

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
''Within a fairly short time after their discovery, historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, as well as carbon-14 dating, established that the scrolls and the Qumran ruin dated from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E. They were indeed ancient! Coming from the late Second Temple Period, a time when Jesus of Nazareth lived, they are older than any other surviving manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures by almost one thousand years.'' <ref> [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/intr.html THE WORLD OF THE SCROLLS] Library of Congress Exhibitions. </ref>
</blockquote>

''Scholars have pointed to similarities between beliefs and practices outlined in the Qumran literature and those of early Christians.'' <ref> [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/scrolls/juda.html JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY AND THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS] Library of Congress Exhibitions. </ref> The Biblical Scrolls' contents focus the books from the [[Old Testament]]. The Scrolls are written in Hebrew and in Aramaica and a few texts in Greek. Many of the scrolls are now conserved in Jerusalem.

Most part of ''the biblical books that have survived two millennia in the caves are extremely fragmented; many are no larger than the size of a postcard, and some fragments are as small as a postage stamp. Even the smallest fragment, however, can add to our knowledge of the Bible.''... ''With the exception of the book of Esther, every book of the Old Testament has been found in the Qumran caves.'' <ref> [http://byubroadcasting.org/deadsea/book/chapter2/sec1.html Old Testament Texts at Qumran] </ref>

==See also==

*[[Yahweh]]
*[[Bible]]
*[[Messiah]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/library.html The Qumran Library]
*[http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html 25 Facts]
*[http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/deadsea.htm Dead Sea Scrolls & Qumran]

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==

* Burrows, M., The Dead Sea Scrolls (Secker & Warburg, 1956).
* Vermes, G., The Dead Sea Scrolls (Penguin, 1968).

[[Category: Bible]]
[[Category:Archaeology]]
[[Category:Book of Worship]]
[[Category:Bible study]]

Politicization of science

2007-05-21T21:42:03Z

MatteeNeutra: added some citation requests...I'll try dig some up myself if I have time!

'''Politicization of science''' occurs when interested parties assert a certain fact or principle as true, even when it remains unproven or is even manifestly untrue.

The best documented case in American history is the banning of [[DDT]] immediately after a hearing in which it was shown to be safe when used as directed. In small quantities, it can even be eaten by human beings - it's not a poison like arsenic or cyanide but it is accumulated in bodies through the food chain effecting especially birds. The new EPA administrator disregarded the hearing results and unilaterally banned DDT. The U.S. ban put pressure on foreign governments to stop using DDT for mosquito control and ultimately led to a worldwide rise in the number of malaria cases; thwarting efforts to control the spread of the disease (see [[Malaria epidemic]]). {{fact}}

Many other chemicals have been considered dangerous and banned for political reasons, often involving health scares. Also nuclear power and even the internal combustion engine have been targeted by partisans using [[junk science]]. Most recently, [[environmentalist]]s refer to [[global warming]] to get the internal combustion engine banned.{{fact}}

==See Also==
[[Environmentalism]]

[[Intelligent Design]]

Progressive rock

2007-05-20T21:12:56Z

MatteeNeutra: added a few links

'''Progressive rock''', often shortened to '''prog rock''' or '''prog''', is a form of [[rock music]] characterized by lengthy and complicated forms (often based on classical or jazz, and frequently consisting of multiple contrasting sections), the use of instruments not typically found in rock, and complicated harmonies and rhythms. Other defining features include the "[[concept album]]" (such as ''[[Dark Side of the Moon]]'' or ''[[The Wall]]''), fantasy-based lyrics, and artistic album covers.

Progressive rock arose during the late 1960s and carried on through the 1970s before a decline corresponding to the rise of [[Punk rock|punk]]. [[King Crimson]], [[Yes]], [[Emerson, Lake, & Palmer]], and [[Genesis]] are considered the four "classic" exponents of this genre, although bands as diverse as [[Pink Floyd]], [[Jethro Tull]], and [[Rush]] have been given this label.

The genre has been criticized for some of its excesses and pretensions, which led to its downfall in the late 1970s (although bands like [[Pink Floyd]] and [[Rush]] continued to maintain a large following). This could be seen as a general turn in popular music towards more commercial and easily-accessible forms (such as disco and smooth jazz).

In the 1980s, many "neo-prog" artists such as [[Pallas]] and [[Marillion]] began a revival of the genre, combining the virtuosity and complexity of the '70s bands with a more mainstream sound reflecting the [[New Wave]] movement. Stalwarts of the genre (including [[Yes]] and [[Genesis]]) also modified their sound to head in a more mainstream direction. One example of this is the formation of the supergroup [[Asia]], featuring former members of [[Yes]], [[King Crimson]], and [[ELP]]. Asia's pop-oriented debut established a sales record for 1982, but surprised disappointed many fans of progressive rock who were expecting something less mainstream.

In the 1990s a new wave of "progressive metal" bands arose who combined the sound of traditional prog bands with metal bands such as [[Black Sabbath]] and [[Metallica]]. The most prominent of these is [[Dream Theater]], while other such bands include [[Symphony X]], [[Queensryche]], and [[Tool]].

[[Category:Music]]

Atheism

2007-05-16T22:43:01Z

MatteeNeutra:

'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of any [[God]]. <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref> <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality, although they may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the revealed words of such deities are not considered to have any more inherent moral authority than books written by people. For instance, it may be claimed that events in the Bible itself even encourage immoral behavior, such as the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan, the stoning to death of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm those practicing homosexuality], poor treatment of women, and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] claim, however, that these objections to the goodness of God are invalid. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html</ref> <ref>http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html</ref> <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</ref>

The study of morality outside of a theistic framework falls under the [[Philosophy| Philosophical]] topic of [[Ethics]].

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any particular religion, and as a result could enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man. Clearly, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. It is also possible some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will choose "other" instead of "no religion" on surveys. It is even possible that selecting a theistic religion does not mean a belief in God; a poll conducted in the [[United Kingdom]] in April 2006 indicated that 63% of Christians believed in a "God or higher spiritual force" and 14% did not<ref>http://www.communicateresearch.com/poll.php?id=77 Communicate Research poll for Premier Radio and the Evangelical Alliance (April 2006)</ref>.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref> <ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

However, cause does not necessarily mean any form of intelligence or God like being. God, according to atheists is a superfluous addition and completely unnecessary for the explanation of the universe.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, [[Creationism|creationists]] claim that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodyamics]] argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref> <ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref> <ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Humiliation

2007-05-16T22:32:00Z

MatteeNeutra:

Humiliation has many connotations; first and foremost it relates to [[shame]] felt by a [[person]] either as a result of another persons actions, or through self-hate. Humiliation is seen as a negative experience.

Psychologist [[Alice Miller]] wrote:
"Since adolescence I have wondered why so many people take pleasure in humiliating others. Clearly the fact that some are sensitive to the suffering of others proves that the destructive urge to hurt is not a universal aspect of human nature. So why do some tend to solve their problems by violence while others don't?" <ref>http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_miller/childhood_trauma.html</ref>

Religious war

2007-05-16T22:21:30Z

MatteeNeutra: made this sound less like a rant and more like an article

A religious war is a war started in the name of a certain [[religion]] usually against a differing and/or opposing religion. Such wars have occured since the formation of [[religion]] and have led to a lot of [[bloodshed]] and [[suffering]].

==Examples of religious wars==

An infamous example of a religious wars, or more exactly series of wars, is the [[Crusades]] of medieval Europe, started by Christians to defeat Muslims and heathens in Israel.

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Jesus Christ

2007-05-15T17:47:11Z

MatteeNeutra: Changed non-encyclopedic wording

[[Image:Christ.jpg|thumb|right|700px|The Christ Redeemer Statue in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]]

'''Jesus Christ''' is the only Son of God who, in the fullness of time, was sent by God the Father to be the expiation for our sins and to ransom us from death.<ref>1 John 4:10; 2 Corinthians 5:19.</ref> By the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and became man in an event known as the Incarnation. Indeed, the calendar itself reflects this truth, with the traditional calculation of Jesus’ birth marking the first century A.D., that is, "''in the year of Our Lord…''".

When he was about thirty, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, inaugurating his ministry. Jesus was the Christ (Greek: Χριστός), or Messiah ([[Hebrew]]: 'משיחא'), prophesied in the Old Testament; he proclaimed, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe in the gospel.”<ref>Mark 1:14-15.</ref> As signs of these truths, Jesus performed various miracles.

Jesus founded the Christian religion, choosing twelve apostles to participate in his mission, and commissioning them to “preach the Kingdom of God and to heal”.<ref>Luke 9:2.</ref>

However, not all who heard the Lord believed in him, and, because he “was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”, some sought to put him to death.<ref>John 5:18.</ref> Jesus was handed over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate and crucified. But it was through his redemptive death, as the scriptures had foretold, that Jesus reconciled mankind with God.<ref>Romans 5:10.</ref> And so, on the third day, in a truly historical event, Jesus physically rose from the dead, making possible salvation and eternal life for those who believe in him. Indeed, his very name (Hebrew 'יהושע', Joshua) means ‘[[YHWH]] is [[salvation]]’. After appearing to his disciples on various occasions, Jesus ascended to Heaven, where he acts as our mediator, assuring, by his constant intercession, the permanent outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. '' (John 3:16).

==Jesus' Life==

In the [[Gospels]] of [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] and [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]], Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] ([[Judea]]) to [[Virgin Mary|Mary]], who at the time was a virgin, by the [[Holy Spirit]]. The [[Gospel of Luke]] relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited Mary in order to announce to her that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). An order of [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], that a survey of the [[Roman Empire]] should be made caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a manger for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[Angel|angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi", ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests), who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]]; this has led to the incorrect assumption that three Magi were present, whereas the actual number is not given) after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home is stated to have been in the town of Nazareth in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood, to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel. Luke's Finding in the Temple (Luke 2:41–52), where Jesus impressed the priests by discoursing in [[Old Testament|scripture]] with them, is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life mentioned in any of the canonical Gospels.

The Gospel of Mark begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[Gospel of John|John]] describes three different [[passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[Apostles]], although all of his followers were considered [[disciples]]. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and the [[Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publicani ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).

Throughout his ministry, Jesus performed many miracles including healing the sick and possessed, feeding 5000, and even raising from the dead.

As He preached, Jesus ran afoul of the [[Sanhedrin]] the recognized Jewish religious authorities who were allowed to have considerable religious, political and monetary influence under Roman rule. Jesus chastised them, accusing them of making laws for the people to follow that were the laws of men, not God. The Sanhedrin tried to set traps for Jesus by asking Him questions to either discredit Him with the people or get Him in trouble with the Roman authorities, but all of their efforts failed and they gave up. They lacked the means to stop Jesus until [[Judas Iscariot]] came to them and offered to betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver. He would tell them where Jesus would be that night so they could seize Him.

Jesus knew that His time was short and that He was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners. He had His last supper with his disciples and went with them to the Garden of Gethsemane and prayed vehemently knowing what was about to come.

[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|right|thumb|300px|Jesus Christ (Conceptualization)]]

Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demand his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, but ultimately condemned Jesus to [[crucifixion]]. Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit. The Bible goes on to record His resurrection on the third day, appearing before his disciples, and his later ascension into heaven as His disciples watched.

==The Historical Jesus==

Modern historians generally place the actual date of Jesus' birth between 7 and 4 B.C. due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

Occasionally non-historians deny the [[Historicity of Jesus|existence of Jesus]], <ref>"Book Article Denies the Existence of a Historical Jesus Figure" [http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/12694/ NewswireToday ] </ref>
<ref>"David H. Lewis [debates] the historicity of Jesus, arguing that New Testament and contemporaneous writings give very little evidence that Jesus actual ever lived." [http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517040.htm Escaping the Gravitational Pull of the Gospels] </ref>
but few scholars take this seriously.
[[Tacitus]], the Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref>, and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him. <ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref>. Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of the existence of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'' which discusses many historical sources which mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''The Case for Christ'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Defense of the resurrection of Jesus ==
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] Gary Habermas is considered the foremost apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus. <ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html</ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf </ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html</ref> Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher [[Anthony Flew]] regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of [[Philosophy|philosophers]] judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]] and [[Michael Horner]]. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</ref><ref>http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref>

Legal scholars such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]] and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm</ref><ref>http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref> Defenders of the resurrection of Christ also cite many distinguished legal authorities regarding the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm</ref>

Another reason to believe the resurrection is the fact that many people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus voluntarily preached the news of this despite extreme persecution, and died for their efforts. Unlike the early members of most religions, these people had the opportunity to be direct eyewitnesses to what verified the claims of Christianity.

== See also ==

*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
*[http://www.farsinet.com/christmas/nativity_church.html Church of Nativity - Birth Place of Jesus Christ] Bethlehem.
*[http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm Jesus Christ]Catholic Encyclopedia.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Essay:Uses of Wikipedia

2007-05-14T22:23:40Z

MatteeNeutra: fixed capitalisation

Despite the [[Bias on Wikipedia|bias]] on Wikipedia, there are some valuable uses for it:

# Wikipedia is useful to determine what the [[liberal]] viewpoint is. For example, in writing [[Essay:Adultress Story]] it helped to see how the Wikipedia entry defends the story, despite its rejection by the [[New International Version]] of the [[Bible]].
# Wikipedia is useful for referring liberal editors to another place where they can post material that violates [[rules]] on Conservapedia, such as gossip, obscenity and liberal opinion. Instead of simply saying "no", a more diplomatic denial can refer the editor to Wikipedia as a place for such material.
# Wikipedia is useful for watching how a website attempts to boost traffic based on the search algorithms employed by [[Google]]. Overuse of linking, which is distracting to readers, helps boost placement in its search engines. As only a small percentage of Wikipedia users go there first to look for information, Wikipedia (unlike Conservapedia) is overwhelmingly dependent on search engine referrals.
# Wikipedia is useful for watching [[liberal]] vandals communicate with each other there about how they try to harm Conservapedia in order to attempt to censor a conservative message.
# Wikipedia is useful for studying how [[liberals]] deny that they have any bias or even a liberal point of view.
# Wikipedia is useful for seeing how a multi-million dollar for-profit project (Wikia) attempts to profit from a volunteer, not-for-profit project (Wikipedia).

Talk:Che Guevara

2007-05-14T22:12:04Z

MatteeNeutra:

Cut from intro:

:There has been no evidence to support the claims that he was plotting but some conservatives have suspected him of planning terrorism against the United States. He was shot in Bolivia by the Bolivian Special Forces in 1967. These Bolivian soldiers were trained, equipped and guided by U.S. Green Beret and CIA operatives.

What is the point of this? US bad, Che good, or what?

This man murdered hundreds of Cuban civilians who opposed the murderous despotic reign of Castro. The paragraph above sounds like a whitewash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Another cut:

:He is also the voice of the conscience of [[Eva Peron]] in [[Andrew Lloyd Weber|Andrew Lloyd Weber's]] ''[[Evita]]''. In the cinematic version of the musical, "Che" is played by [[Antonio Banderas]], and Evita by [[Madonna]].

Wikipedia's article also has problems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ouch! It's totally true. Watch Evita. But it's not strictly important. Unless you love the musical like I do.-'''AmesG'''<su[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:''Evita''!? We're gonna use the Screen Writers Guild now as sources? Might as well fold shop and all of us move back to Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Wait, who's following the policy with Osama? Isn't the US government going hell for leather to try to kill Osama? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 13:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nope. And never did. Studying the legend of Che, you now understand '''''why''''' it was never a priority to kill bin Laden. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So stated US goals of killing him are lies? Or are you interpreting past the text? Because I thought you were a literalist type of character.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Since Guevara's killing in 1967 it has been debated among Intelligence analysts and policymakers the merits of killing a terrorist leader only to have him idolized in death as a maryr to a cause. After 1975, by Executive Order, such assassinations now are explicitly forbidden without Presidential authorization. In Israel, matters are handled somewhat differently, in that these sorts of decisions are Cabinet decisions, and not the responsibility of one man like under US law (see ''By Way of Deception'' by Victor Ostrovsky [http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Victor-Ostrovsky/dp/0971759502]). Arafat, for example, while condemned to death ''in absentia'' by the Israeli cabinet, nonetheless a death warant was never issued by the Prime Minister for his arrest and/or execution, and this is because of pressure from the US State Department not to make a Che Guevara type martyr out of him. Similiarly with bin Laden. Killing him serves no purpose now. It does not undo the events of 9/11 or bring 3000 back from the grave. It probably would elevate him in death to something larger than he ever was in life. So he can be made more of an example as a coward, living in hiding in caves, a hunted man for the rest of his life, which serves more to deter any future bin Laden wanna be's than making a martyr out of him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So is that your position as to why the US hasn't caught him yet? Then why did they catch Saddam? Was that a "mistake," because your policy seems to suggest that dangers to society are better alive than dead no matter what.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent parallel; Saddam too, like bin Ladan, was made an example of, living in a hole as a hunted man. And when he was caught, it wasn't the US that executed him. There is no doubt that if bin Laden is caught, he will be tried to. But killing him out in the jungle for revenge purposes, or of fear that he might lead a mass movement again, is not a likely scenario. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Image==

...but apparently you are here to push forward your silly "anti-Che" agenda. The t-shirt pic is completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia entry. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:RobS, I tried to post on your talk page but it was blocked with a spam protection filter. Please read my comments and respond. Cheers [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Che Guevara

2007-05-14T21:45:00Z

MatteeNeutra:

Che Guevara

2007-05-14T21:39:31Z

MatteeNeutra: replaced silly image

[[Image:Cheguevara.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Ernesto "Che" Guevara''' (1928-1967) was an [[Argentina|Argentine]]-born [[Marxist]] who was involved in [[guerilla warfare]] in a number of countries on behalf of [[Communist]] causes.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18363</ref> He was a major player in the [[Cuba]]n revolution that led to [[Fidel Castro]] seizing power.

Guevara was in his time known as a charismatic leader and his image is still used as an iconic one which adorns millions of t-shirts as well as a whole raft of paraphernalia. It is for this reason Intelligence analysts in recent decades have refrained from recommending killing terrorist leaders so as to avoid creating the image of a [[martyr]]. [[Yasser Arafat]] and [[Osama bin Laden]] are two of the most prominent examples of this policy of not creating living legends in death by executing a terrorist leader.

Che Guevara T-shirts has become a [[best-seller]] in North American and European college campuses.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Guevara, Che}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Marxists]]

The Passion of the Christ

2007-05-14T21:28:24Z

MatteeNeutra:

'''The Passion of the Christ''' was a movie produced by [[Mel Gibson]] and bankrolled with his own money. The film is based on the last 24 hours of the life of [[Jesus]], as read in the [[Gospels]]. Gibson felt that God wished him to make this movie as a "repayment" for the forgiveness of God. {{fact}}

Gibson was not even able to find a major distributor for his film.{{fact}} For a year before the movie was even released, and well before it was first previewed or seen, attacks on the movie began. This turned out to be coupled with personal attacks on Mel Gibson with such titles as "Crazy Mel" and then attacks on his father and a call to Mel denounce his father, which Mel wouldn't do.{{fact}} The New York Times especially started a campaign of almost daily attacks on Mel Gibson and his family.{{fact}}

Nevertheless, the movie went on to be a blockbuster grossing over 370 million in the U.S. and over 600 million world wide{{fact}}, an especially unheard of showing for the time of the year it was released. Cries of anti-semitism were largely silenced as people saw the movie. With so many critics denouncing the movie without having seen it, Mel did an end around and went directly to church pastors, who were almost unanimously supportive and told their congregations.{{fact}} Monetarily, it was the most successful Christian film ever.{{fact}}

For Mel Gibson it was a personal affair. Thick skinned by the nature of the business, he still did not expect the virulent attacks. For the star Jim Caviezel, it meant being blackballed. While blockbusters usually make people's careers, for Jim it has been hard to find anything more than minor roles.

Talk:Environmentalist

2007-05-11T23:07:14Z

MatteeNeutra:

Give a pat on the back to whoever changed this article from hateful Environmentalist bashing to something that's certainly more pleasant. Good job.

Give some justification as to why claim is appropriate. Alot of people that call themselves environmentalists do seek to protect the environment. Claim gives the impression of people saying one theing and doing something else.
-Gasmonkey

:''from the'' [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tov_namerica.php ATTAC REPORT]:

[[Greenpeace]] Founding/Supervisory Organizations:
*Red China
*Soviet intelligence apparatus ([[KGB]]/FSB)
*[[World Peace Council]] (WPC)
Supporting Organizations:
*[[Red Army Fraction]] (RAF)
*[[Earth First]]! (EF!)
*[[Institute for Policy Studies]] (IPS)

Greenpeace

Type of Organization: Semi-violent/protest-organizing

Location: United States, Canada, various European nations, Soviet Russia, Red China, & others

Ideological cover: Environmentalist

Activities: Political & legal activism; provocation & incitement to violence; political & logistical support for [[terrorism]]

Target countries: United States, Canada, Western European nations, & others

Status: Confirmed active

Assisted Organizations:
*Earth First! (EF!)
*[[Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy]] (SANE)
*[[Sea Shepherd Conservation Society]] (SSCS)

Derivative/Controlled Organizations:
*[[Earth Liberation Front]] (ELF)
*Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS)
[[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm an environmentalist and I don't belong to Greenpeace. Great job at generalizing there cheif. Just because ONE group of a FEW environmentaly minded people at some times go too far and commit crimes you generalize that to all environmetalists? Seriously, congrats on that. Are you a Christian? Well, then you are proably an Aryan skinhead too by your logic. After all, they claim to be Christians too.
:I'm a corncerned environmentalist about the environment, too. That's why I thought my lagunage was pretty good.. What we are discussing here is organizations claiming to be environmentalist, which may have other agendas. I'm sure we can get some gound language rounded out. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The ATTAC guys also claim that the PLO is behind 9/11 [http://www.attacreport.com/index.htm]. I'd be wary of giving them any credence. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 23:46, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Be wary of them? that's not anti-Semitic comment, is it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:12, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

if you claim to be an environmentalist and do something else then u aren't really an environmentalist.
if I claimed to be a republican but voted for and believed in democratic veiws would I still be a republican?--[[User:Benburned|Benburned]] 00:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:A person can be 40% environmentalist with 60% dedicated to another agenda. Likewise it's not uncommon at all for crossover votes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:43, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==The religuion of nature==
American, you were on to something, and it's even poetic, but it gets a little sarcastic at the end. I'll try and save what I can. This part,

:'' There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution ''

can be backed up with scripture, Genesis "because thou hast sinned, cursed is the ground for thy sake". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==Worship of Gaia?==
Where is the sourced information for this section? The only source in it is a link to some speech Michael Crichton made. How is he an expert on any of this? Please clarify, or let's get rid of it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:04, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

No kidding, it's almost incoherent. [[User:Pendayho|Pendayho]] 16:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: Tis hilarious. Especially the Al Gore picture. I'm going to find me some other 'hilarious' pictures to plaster all over the site. Should be some good George Bush ones. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

:: And let us not forget about how mockery is a tool exclusive to the liberal repetoire. Oh and it's good to see how it all got put back with no attempt at an explination. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:06, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Mockery? It is all very well cited, and only encapuslated. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:11, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well cited? I like ATTAC: (I quote directly) which describes itself as 'A Hasidic Analysis of World War III'. The link up, which draws lines from Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club, to 'revolutionary communist terror cells', has had me laugh quite a bit. It's almost as good as [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory this]. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]

::: My mockery comment was more directed at the purposeful choice of pictures of liberals that make them look either 1) goofy or 2) sinister. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:47, 11 May 2007 (EDT
:::: Shall I replace it with [[Image:Al_gore.jpg]] this? I'm not sure having a picture of Al Gore serves any purpose beyond that which I would be loath to accuse RobS of. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Liaise with the cabal?]
::::: To be honest, I have no idea why this article even needs a picture of Gore other than that he's a noted environmentalist. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

: And furthermore, can you explain what any of that has to do with environmentalists? It seems to me if you want to write about Gaia worshipers that should be moved to a different topic. You seem to be looking for the most ridiculous information you can find and trying to stereotype all environmentalists as nut jobs. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 18:54, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
‎::Gaia+environmentalist brings up 115,000 Google hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist%2BGaia&btnG=Google+Search] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

:::pie+enviromentalist brings up 174,000 Google hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=environmentalist+pie&btnG=Google+Search]Perhaps we should include a section on how enviromentalists like pie?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 19:07, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-05-11T22:35:11Z

MatteeNeutra:

== Abomination! ==

Could Conservapedia provide an article even more so minimizing the Divinity of Jesus Christ? Maybe if we work real hard at it, we can acknowledge him, along with all the other men named Jesus, as mere spokesmen? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==
I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

:::Some one needs to unlock this page if it is on the main page: Lets all improve these articles. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to vandalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

:It looks like it has been locked again. There are a few ignorant spelling errors I would like to correct. [[User:MontyZuma|MontyZuma]] 19:09, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Surely Jesus while on Earth was a man born of woman and both feared and felt pain as a man would. Saying he went willingly because he knew he would rise again surely cheapens the sacrifice he made for us. He gave his life willingly and with great suffering for us without knowing what would become of him and, in this, made the most selfless sacrifice in all of history.

I am not a theologian but I would like to see a scholar of the Bible (as supposed to a simple follower like me) look at what I've suggested and see if the Bible supports this. I always believed that the human aspect of him made the sacrifice all the greater (and the sadder as such a great man died to such mockery and in such pain). --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:17, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:This statement was put in again (although under a different guise). I removed it as it is neither logic, or the reason Jesus was crucified. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:35, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== The top picture should be on the right more so the top text can be on the left ==

The top picture should be on the right more so the text can be on the left. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
::Nevermind i fixed it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*LOL...its okay for the pic to be on the left, as it was originally. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::TK, i certainly don't want to get into a edit war over something trivial. But people do read from left to right and at first I missed the upper text. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How can there be an edit war if you're the only person editing? [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 20:16, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Unprotection ==

Glad to see you unprotected the article for the "Article improvement drive". I would make some edits but need to hit the sack. [[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 19:00, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Jesus Christ

2007-05-11T22:35:09Z

MatteeNeutra:

[[Image:Christ.jpg|thumb|right|700px|The Christ Redeemer Statue in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.]]

'''Jesus Christ'''
is accepted by [[Christians]] as the [[Son of God]] and the [[Messiah]]. Others call him 'Jesus of [[Nazareth]]', Christ, or Jesus, The Christ.
His name derives from the [[Hebrew]] 'יהושע ', meaning '[[YHWH]] is '[[salvation]]', whereas 'Christ' is more accurately a title; it comes from the [[Hebrew]] 'משיחא', or 'anointed one', which was translated into Greek as 'Χριστός'.

The historical importance of Jesus is memorialized by the modern calendar, which sets the year one to the traditional year of his birth.

==Jesus' Life==

In the [[Gospels]] of [[Matthew]] and [[Luke]], Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] ([[Judea]]) to [[Mary]], who at the time was a virgin, by the [[Holy Spirit]]. The [[Gospel of Luke]] relates that the angel [[Gabriel]] visited [[Mary (mother of Jesus)|Mary]] in order to announce to her that she had been chosen to bear the Son of God (Luke 1:26–38). An order of [[Augustus|Caesar Augustus]], that a survey of the [[Roman Empire]] should be made caused Mary and [[Joseph (father of Jesus)|Joseph]] to leave Nazareth and go to the home of Joseph's forebears - to the house of [[David|King David]]. After Jesus' birth, they were forced to use a manger for a crib because the town's inn was full. According to Luke 2:8–20, an [[Angel|angel]] spread word of Jesus' birth to several shepherds who came to visit the newborn. Matthew also tells of the "Magi", ([[Zoroastrianism|Zoroastrian]] priests), who brought many gifts to the infant Jesus (among which were [[gold]], [[frankincense]], and [[myrrh]]; this has led to the incorrect assumption that three Magi were present, whereas the actual number is not given) after following a star which they believed was an indication that the [[Messiah]], or King of the Jews, had been born.

Jesus' early home is stated to have been in the town of Nazareth in [[Galilee]], and except for an escape to [[Egypt]] in early childhood, to avoid [[Herod the Great|Herod's]] massacre of the other male infants, all other events in the Gospels take place in ancient Israel. Luke's Finding in the Temple (Luke 2:41–52), where Jesus impressed the priests by discoursing in [[Old Testament|scripture]] with them, is the only detailed event between Jesus' infancy and adult life mentioned in any of the canonical Gospels.

The Gospel of Mark begins with the [[baptism]] of Jesus by [[John the Baptist]], which appears to be the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. Jesus came to the [[Jordan River|River Jordan]], where John was preaching and baptizing people in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized, and had risen up out of the water, Mark states Jesus 'saw the heavens torn apart and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from [[heaven]], 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased' (Mark 1:10–11). Luke adds the chronological anchor that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of [[Tiberius]] Caesar, approximately in 28 AD (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23).

After this baptism, according to Matthew, Jesus was brought into the desert by God where he fasted for forty days nights. During this period, the [[Satan]] appeared before him and tried three times to tempted Jesus into demonstrating his supernatural powers as a proof of his divine status; each temptation was refused by Jesus, with a scriptural quote from the Book of [[Deuteronomy]].

Jesus then began to preach. [[John]] describes three different [[Pesach|passover]] feasts that Jesus attended, thus implying that his ministry lasted three years.

The larger part of this was directed towards his closest followers, the [[Apostles]], although all of his followers were considered disciples. At the highest point of his ministry, Jesus attracted disciples and audiences numbering in the thousands; in particular in the area of Galilee. Many of Jesus' most well-known teachings were given during the [[Sermon on the Mount]], such as the [[Beatitudes]] and the [[Lord's Prayer]]. Jesus often used parables in his rhetorical technique, such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] and the [[Parable of the Sheep and the Goats]]; these teachings encouraged unconditional self-sacrificing [[Shema|love for God]] and [[Agape|for all people]]. During these sermons, he also discussed service and humility, forgiveness of sins, how faith should be applied, the [[Golden Rule]], and the necessity of following the spirit of the law as well as its wording.

Jesus also often conversed with social outcasts, such as the publicani ([[Rome|Roman]] tax collectors who were unpopular for their practice of extorting money).
[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|right|thumb|300px|Jesus Christ (Conceptualization)]]

Jesus was betrayed by Judas into the hands of the Jewish religious authorities who took Him away and secretly put Him on trial during the night, trying to find justification for their desire to have Him killed. Finally, they convicted Him of blasphemy. As they did not have the authority to put a man to death, they took him to [[Pontius Pilate]], the Roman governor of Palestine, with their charges and demand his execution. Pilate avoided the issue by sending him to [[Herod Antipas|King Herod]] since Jesus was a Galilean, but Herod sent him back to Pilate. Pilate at first tried to release Jesus with a flogging, but ultimately condemned Jesus to [[crucifixion]]. Jesus died after suffering and giving up his spirit. The Bible goes on to record His resurrection on the third day, appearing before his disciples, and his later ascension into heaven as His disciples watched.

==The Historical Jesus==

It may surprise some readers to learn that modern historians generally place the actual date of his birth between 7 and 4 B.C. due to problems reconciling the Roman and Jewish calendars with the [[Gregorian Calendar]] which is in use today throughout the industrialized world.

Occasionally non-historians deny the [[Historicity of Jesus|existence of Jesus]], <ref>"Book Article Denies the Existence of a Historical Jesus Figure" [http://www.newswiretoday.com/news/12694/ NewswireToday ] </ref>
<ref>"David H. Lewis [debates] the historicity of Jesus, arguing that New Testament and contemporaneous writings give very little evidence that Jesus actual ever lived." [http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517040.htm Escaping the Gravitational Pull of the Gospels] </ref>
but few scholars take this seriously.
[[Tacitus]], the Roman historian, wrote about Jesus in A.D. 115<ref>http://www.digisys.net/users/ddalton/evidence_of_jesus_outside_the_bible.htm</ref>, and [[Josephus]], a Jewish historian who did not believe in Jesus' divinity, wrote about him. <ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html</ref>. Dr. [[Gary Habermas]] wrote an extensive analysis of the historicity of the existence of Jesus in his work ''The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ'' which discusses many historical sources which mention Jesus.

[[Lee Strobel]]'s book ''The Case for Christ'' contains a number of interviews with experts on the historical Jesus and a defense of Jesus's resurrection, and is a good resource on this subject.

== Defense of the resurrection of Jesus ==
The [[Resurrection of Jesus Christ|resurrection of Jesus Christ]] is critical to the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul wrote, "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain" (I Cor:15:14). Traditionally, Christianity has believed in a physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. <ref>http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/crj0056a.txt</ref>

In recent history [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] Gary Habermas is considered the foremost apologist for defending the resurrection of Jesus. <ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/books/lichabrvw.html</ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection1-CTR.pdf </ref><ref>http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/Habermas-Resurrection2-CTR.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_explainingaway/crj_explainingaway.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html</ref> Dr. Habermas had a debate against the philosopher [[Anthony Flew]] regarding the resurrection which was chronicled in the work ''Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate'' and the debate had a panel of debate judges. J. Hampton Keathley, III , Th.M. in his essay ''Evidences for the Resurrection'' wrote: "The decision of the judges were as follows. The panel of [[Philosophy|philosophers]] judging content cast four votes for Habermas who argued for the fact of the resurrection, none for Flew, and one draw. The panel of professional debate judges voted three to two, also in favor of Habermas, this time regarding the method of argumentation technique." <ref>http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=639</ref>

In recent history some notable defenders of the resurrection include: [[William Lane Craig]], [[Lee Strobel]], [[Josh McDowell]], [[Edwin M. Yamauchi]], [[N.T. Wright]] and [[Michael Horner]]. <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html</ref><ref>http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/yama.html</ref><ref>http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Early_Traditions.htm</ref><ref>http://www.michaelhorner.com/articles/resurrection/index.html</ref>

Legal scholars such as [[Simon Greenleaf]], [[John Warwick Montgomery]] and many others have asserted that western legal standards argue for the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.bibleteacher.org/sgtestimony.htm</ref><ref>http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissart1.htm</ref><ref>http://lawreligionculturereview.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_lawreligionculturereview_archive.html</ref><ref>http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/philjohnsonpap.html</ref> Defenders of the resurrection of Christ also cite many distinguished legal authorities regarding the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. <ref>http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/apologetics/AP0302W3.htm</ref>

Another reason to believe the resurrection is the fact that many people who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus voluntarily preached the news of this despite extreme persecution, and died for their efforts. Unlike the early members of most religions, these people had the opportunity to be direct eyewitnesses to what verified the claims of Christianity.

==Other people in the Bible named "Jesus"==

The author of ''Ecclesiastius,'' a book which [[Catholicism|Catholics]] and [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Eastern Orthodox Christians]] consider deuterocanonical, but Protestants place in the Apocrypha, is known as ''Jesus of Sira.''

The name ''Joshua'' from the old testament is the same name as ''Jesus'', it just hasn't gone through the Greek.

== See also ==

*[[Byzantine Empire]]
*[[Andrew the Apostle]]
*[[Lazarus (brother of Mary)]]
*[[Lazarus (Parable)]]
*[[Judaism]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.ccci.org/wij/ Who is Jesus? Is Jesus Christ God?]
*[http://www.farsinet.com/christmas/nativity_church.html Church of Nativity - Birth Place of Jesus Christ] Bethlehem.
*[http://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=19&sub=302&cat_name=Jesus&subcat_name=Background Jesus Background] Bible History on line.
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm Jesus Christ]Catholic Encyclopedia.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Jesus]]
[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Christian History]]
[[Category:Religion]]

Earthquake

2007-05-10T20:38:13Z

MatteeNeutra:

An Earthquake is the shaking caused when [[tectonic]] activity in an area causes the release of [[energy]] from the rock. Most commonly occuring on tectonic plate boundaries, earthquakes also occur along faults where previous movement has occured.

Earthquakes cause a significant natural [[hazard]] to populations living in areas prone to earthquakes and responses to the hazard vary with economic development.

The most powerful earthquakes occur at destructive tectonic plate boundaries.

[[Category:Nature]]
[[Category:Geography]]
[[Category:Geology]]
[[Category:Natural disasters]]

Amplitude

2007-05-10T20:24:20Z

MatteeNeutra: Not to do with subject matter

[[Amplitude]] is the measure of the strength of a [[wave]].

Since there are many types of wave, their amplitude has to be measured in different ways.

An abstract [[sine wave]] on a sheet of graph paper can be characterized by its maximum height above the ''x'' axis. The simplest, <math>y = sin (x)</math>, has an amplitude of +/- 1. The class of "real" waves that are sine-like can be similarly measured, for instance, water waves on the [[ocean]] or a [[lake]]. It is important to differentiate between measuring the displacement from rest versus the peak-to-peak distance.

Sound waves can be expressed as a difference in pressure between their peak [[compression]]s and [[rarefaction]]s, or, more practically, by their loudness or ''[[sound pressure level]]''.

Greece

2007-05-08T19:18:08Z

MatteeNeutra:

[[Image:Greece.gif|thumbnail|right|250px|The Greek Flag.]]

[[Image:Greek national costume.jpg|frame|right|Greek national costume.]]

Country located in the South-East of [[Europe]]. It is also used as a
collective term for the [[civilization|civilizations]] of that geographic
area. It is now a [[Greece (Country)|developed country]]
<ref>http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1127.html</ref>,
member of the [[EU]] and of [[NATO]].

Ancient Greece had a lot of influence on many of today's cultural
achievements, like democracy and the art of debating. The ancient Greeks
were pagans, believing in their own pantheon of numerous gods.

Greece was instrumental in the
spread and subsequest growth of [[Christianity]]. The first town of
(today's) [[Europe]] set foot on was [[Philipi]] in Northern Greece
and the [[Athens]] hill on which he preached is one of the most important
landmarks of the town. It is generally accepted that the Greek-speaking
part of the [[Roman Empire]] was the first one to abandon paganism
<ref>Renaissance and Reformation: The Intellectual Genesis, by A. Levi
Yale University Press (2004) </ref>
and certainly, [[Constantine the Great]], the first Christian Roman
Emperor moved his capital to [[Constantinople]] in the Greek East.
Most of the great Church Fathers were either Greek or primarily active in
the Greek-speaking areas of the Empire <ref>The Teachings of the Church
Fathers, by John Randolph Willis, Ignatius Press (2002)</ref>

The [[Byzantine Empire]], as it was late called, was a continuation of the
(Eastern) Roman Empire, but it was gradually identified with the Greek
national conscience and the [[Greek-Orthodox]] Church. <ref>History
of the Byzantine State, by G. Ostrogorski, Rutgers University Press
(1986)</ref> The Byzantine State was dissolved after the conquest of
[[Constantinople]] by the [[Ottoman]] Turks in 1453. The Greeks, along
with the other Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire, were represented
by the [[Ecumenical Patriarchate]] of [[Constantinople]] and the
Greek-Orthodox Patriarch was responsible for the obedience of the
Orthodox subjects to the Sultan.

The modern Greek state was established in 1830 after the Greek War of
Independence (1821-1830). Though still holding on to the
Greek Orthodox traditions that defined Greek culture for centuries, Greece
has since its independence rapidly developing economically and integrating
into the Western institutions. It took part in both World Wars on the side
of the [[USA]] and the other allies and it successfully resisted a
Communist take-over during the Greek Civil War (1945-1949). Greece is now
an EU and NATO member and its currency is the [[Euro]] <ref>
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gr.html</ref>

==References==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
</div>

==See Also==
[[Greco-Persian Wars]]

[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:EU Members]]

Open source (software)

2007-05-08T19:12:40Z

MatteeNeutra:

[[Image:Opensource.svg.png|right|100px|thumb|OSI logo]]
'''Open Source''' is a software development model being promoted by the non-profit '''Open Source Initiative (OSI)''' corporation and other organizations.
==Open Source==
Open Source refers to software where the [[source code]] is available for anyone to modify. There are many different licenses under which open source software is available<ref>http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical</ref>, all varying slightly to the degree on the conditions under which the software can be modified and redistributed.

Although the development model for open source software may seem counterintuitive, for many projects it has been shown to be very successful. Generally, open source software is distributed with the underlying source code available for anyone to freely modify and redistribute. This development model is very similar to university research, where discoveries and research is published in [[peer review|peer reviewed]] journals, which is then built upon by other researchers spawning further ideas and discoveries.

There is a common misconception that open source software must be given away for free, but this is incorrect.<ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee</ref> Although most open source software is indeed available for free, with the authors usually charging for consulting and other services, there is no obligation for them to do so.

==Examples==
Examples of well known open source software:
*[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki] - Wiki software used for sites such as Conservapedia and Wikipedia.
*[http://httpd.apache.org/ Apache] - Apache web server, the most popular web server in the world.<ref>http://news.netcraft.com/</ref>
*[http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ Firefox] - [[Firefox]] web browser developed by the [http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/ Mozilla Foundation].
*[http://www.php.net/ PHP] - PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor, a scripting language used to create dynamic web sites such as Conservapedia.
*[[Linux]] - Operating system kernel used to create distributions such as the one running the server on which Conservapedia runs on.<ref>http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.conservapedia.com</ref>

==See also==
*[[Free software]]

==External Links==
[http://www.opensource.org/ Open Source Initiative]

==References==
<references />
[[category: information technology]]

Erlang

2007-05-08T19:11:43Z

MatteeNeutra:

Erlang is a programming language developed by [[Ericsson]] Computer Science Laboratory. At present the source code is available as an [[open source]].

Egyptian language

2007-05-08T18:04:24Z

MatteeNeutra: Finished off some structural editing

The Egyptian language is a member of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages and is related to Berber and Semitic. Egyptian has been spoken since 2600B.C. and still survives today as Egyptian Arabic. It has lasted nearly four millennia, and is one of the oldest recorded languages.

==Development==

The development of Egyptian is broken into six stages.

#Pre 2600BC - Archaic Egyptian
#2600-2000BC - Old Egyptian
#2000-1300BC - Middle Egyptian
#1300-700BC - Late Egyptian
#700BC-500AD - Demotic
#400-1500AD - Coptic

Middle Egyptian fell out of everyday use after 1300BC, but survived through the first few centuries AD as a formal written language, used in the same way as Latin was in Medieval Europe.

==Structure==

The structure of Egyptian is similar to many other Afro-Asiatic languages. Most words have a root of three consonants, although some have more or less.

Vowels are not written in Egyptian.

Egyptian, like many of its related languages, has single, dual, and plural forms of nouns, meaning a noun can be written three different ways signifying one thing, two things, and three or more things. Like the Romance Languages and Irish Gaelic, Egyptian nouns are either masculine or feminine. Egyptian’s basic word order is ‘Subject, Noun, Object.” ‘The man opens the door’ would be ‘Opens the man the door’.

When most people think of the Egyptian Language, they think of hieroglyphs, but not all Egyptian is written with glyphs. While Archaic, Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian were written with hieroglyphs, Demotic was written with an alphabet similar to modern Arabic script, and Coptic was written with a modified form of the Greek alphabet.

[[Category:languages]]

Egyptian language

2007-05-08T17:14:27Z

MatteeNeutra: Made a start at some de-essay-ifying: more to come

The Egyptian language is a member of the Afro-Asiatic family of languages and is related to Berber and Semitic. Egyptian has been spoken since 2600B.C. and still survives today as Egyptian Arabic. It has lasted nearly four millennia, and is one of the oldest recorded languages.

==Development==

The development of Egyptian is broken into six stages.

#Pre 2600BC - Archaic Egyptian
#2600-2000BC - Old Egyptian
#2000-1300BC - Middle Egyptian
#1300-700BC - Late Egyptian
#700BC-500AD - Demotic
#400-1500AD - Coptic

Middle Egyptian fell out of everyday use after 1300BC, but survived through the first few centuries AD as a formal written language, used in the same way as Latin was in Medieval Europe.

==Structure==

The structure of Egyptian is similar to many other Afro-Asiatic languages. Most words have a root of three consonants, although some have more or less. Vowels are not written in Egyptian. Egyptian, like many of its related languages, has single, dual, and plural forms of nouns, meaning a noun can be written three different ways signifying one thing, two things, and three or more things. Like the Romance Languages and Irish Gaelic, Egyptian nouns are either masculine or feminine. Egyptian’s basic word order is ‘Subject, Noun, Object.” ‘The man opens the door’ would be ‘Opens the man the door’.

When most people think of the Egyptian Language, they think of hieroglyphs, but not all Egyptian is written with glyphs. While Archaic, Old, Middle, and Late Egyptian were written with hieroglyphs, Demotic was written with an alphabet similar to modern Arabic script, and Coptic was written with a modified form of the Greek alphabet.
Although Egyptian is one of the oldest languages, it is certainly not obsolete. Egyptian has been spoken for more than four thousand years, outlasting the majority of languages.
[[Category:languages]]

Gun control

2007-05-08T16:56:20Z

MatteeNeutra: rmvd unsourced, biased falsehood

Gun control laws have been enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to own [[firearms]].

A common use of firearms is to defend one's life, though accidental death of those who are attacking has occurred. Gun control laws are often seen to conflict with the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]], which recognizes the right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

'''Gun control''' is the regulation by governments of [[gun]] ownership and the right to carry, conceal, or use [[firearm]]s. Such measures can range from a total prohibition on civilian ownership and possession of firearms and ammunition to specific restrictions on certain firearm features, "waiting periods" for gun purchases, licensing of gun owners, registration of firearms, etc. Increased "gun control" is generally promoted by pacifists and [[liberals]] as a remedy to [[crime]]. In fact, whether or not guns are officially controlled by the government, criminals will commit crimes, and a black market will exist to provide them with firearms. For instance, despite the prohibition of handgun ownership in the [[United Kingdom]], an island nation without any neighboring "gun culture" nations, handgun crime has been steadily increasing there for many years. As of 2005/06, the total deaths by shooting in the UK had increased to 50.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref>. Comparably, the United States suffered 11,350 gun deaths in 2005.<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>However, it should be noted that the USA has a population approximately 5 times greater than the UK,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa</ref> and<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uk</ref> the number of murders by shooting is approximately 200 times higher

The "right to keep and bear arms" is a right guaranteed to the American citizen by the Bill of Rights through the virtue of a selective reading of said Bill. The phrase "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" precedes the statement, and most federal circuits [[cour]ts of appeals]] have held that this phrase requires that the "right to bear arms" relates to the collective rights of state militias, as opposed to the individual's rights to have any weapon desired. Just recently, the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit went against nine other circuits in holding that the Second Amendment constitutes an individual right.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/10/washington/10gun.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258067,00.html</ref>

==Overview==
The end effect of gun control laws is the concentration of firearms ownership in the hands of the state. This is why gun control is promoted by various statist philosophies such as [[Communism]], [[Socialism]], and [[Fascism]].

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on this right. This can include:

* Restricting which persons can own firearms.
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, "handguns" or assault rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public, which was used in several southern states.
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms, though this has never occurred in the United States

In the United States the three primary federal gun control laws are:
* National Firearms Act (1934)
* Gun Control Act (1968)
* Brady Bill (1993)

These laws have further been amended by other laws such as the Firearms Owners Protection Act (1986) and the Omnibus Crime Bill (1994).

==Objections to gun control==
Studies by John Lott and others indicate that gun control causes higher crime rates<ref>http://www.johnrlott.com/</ref>. [[Washington, D.C.]] has one of the highest crime rates in America even though it completely bans private handguns <ref>http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm</ref>.

After decades of increasing gun control laws, the current trend is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain new rifles labeled assault rifles solely because of features of their appearance, and on new high-capacity magazines. This law recently expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, Washington D.C.'s gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070309-102401-2730r.htm</ref>

==Constitutional Debate==
The [[Second Amendment]] reads:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Most constitutional scholars agree that since the amendment refers to "the right of the People" instead of the right of the militia, it protects an individual right to own guns. The extent of that right has been debated.

==Racism of gun control==
In the [[United States of America]], gun control has a strong racist origin and reasoning. Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President [[Abraham Lincoln]] issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] in its infamous 1857 decision in ''Dred Scott v. Sandford'' to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

Today, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

* Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
* Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
* "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."
* Some U.S. cities with high minority populations, such as Washington, D.C., are singled out for gun bans.
* "Project Exile" began in the U.S. city of Richmond, Virginia and mandated that people arrested for technical firearms violations (note: not for violent crimes committed with a firearm, but for technical violations of the law) be tried in federal court where they would be subject to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences rather than in state court under the more lenient Virginia laws. As with many other restrictions this was aimed primarily at the city's Black residents. It has since been copied in many other cities.

==External Links==

*[http://www.nra.org/ The National Rifle Association]
*[http://www.nrapublications.org/armed%20citizen/Index.asp Armed citizens defending themselves.]

==References==

<references/>

Conservapedia:Sysop complaint documentation

2007-05-04T18:25:20Z

MatteeNeutra:

{|style="width:100%"
|'''Quick Links'''
[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]] 
[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]] 
[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]] 
[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]] 
[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]] 
|style="text-align:center"|<big>This is where you can report abuse by Sysops. Please make notes short and concise. 
'''Do not piggyback! One ''new'' header per complaint. Unsigned posts will be removed.'''</big> 
Click '''[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&action=edit&section=new here]''' to file a complaint.
|valign="top"|'''Archives'''

'''Sub-pages'''

[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative|User:Conservative]]''

|}

== ColinR ==

Deleted the archive I created last night for Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative

I just restored it. Colin, I beg of you, please don't start deleting history here, okay? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:The archive was never deleted. Anyone who looks at the page history will realize this, all I did was move the archive out of the mainspace into the correct namespace, leaving a temporarily broken link, which the brilliant editor above me equates to it being deleted. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Oh yeah? What is this? '''00:11, 10 April 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Conservative Archive 1" (content was: '#REDIRECT Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse/Archive 1' (and the only contributor was 'ColinR'))'''--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:THAT WASN'T THE ARCHIVE!!! THAT IS A REDIRECT. LOOK AT THE FREAKIN' CONTENT LISTED!!! [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:40, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Read above. Does the system not say it was an archive, Colin? When I cliked the link for the archive I made, it said the page had been deleted. The delete log says you deleted it. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Further, if you did anything to the archive I asked for help on last night, and you were among those who refused, and you came around tonight or earlier today and moved or fixed anything, without telling me, it is just as bad. Yes, you do have to inform, elite one. Still, the links to the archives were still missing on the Conervative/abuse page and the Sysop/Admin page that Philip was into. There were other posts asking what happened to the archives. Further insults will not be tolerated, Colin. You have had your very last warning. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:TK, your comment makes no sense, and you even admitted that I didn't delete the archive links. All I did was move the archives out of the mainspace to their correct spot, something that people have done before (think Sid) and you have no clue what's going on and flip out. I have not insulted you, only asked serious questions, and you respond with false accusations and threats. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 00:55, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Colin, I admitted no such thing. The system said, when I entered the link to the archive I created, that you had deleted it. If you deleted a re-direct, and replaced it, in another "Lone Ranger" stunt, elite one, without posting about, or telling me, you still forgot to replace the links to it! Other people noticed, and posted about it. ''Like I said, those days are over now, doing whatever you feel like, and you have had your final warning.'' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The archive link you created was in the mainspace, where it '''didn't''' belong. Thus I moved it out of the mainspace, only to realize I had moved it to the wrong spot, thus I moved it again to the correct spot (where it is now) and deleted the redirects, since one was in the mainspace and the other was a double redirect (and both were not needed). You accuse me of a lone ranger stunt, but your archiving seems to be just as "elitist" as my actions. Quit with the empty threats and baseless accusations. I'm getting tired of your false claims anytime you don't understand something. And I don't have to tell you every time I do something, you're not my keeper, nor is anyone on here. If you have a problem doing whatever they feel like, why not "complain" to almost every editor on this site. I'm through with this crap, if you have something valid and worthwhile to complain about, then we'll talk. Until then, GOOD DAY, SIR. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 01:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hmmm, I could have swore you said earlier you didn't delete anything, but now it seems you say you did. I am getting confused. And yes, Colin, things are changing, for the better, and you will start to communicate, with me, and the other Sysops. I very politely posted, asking for help with the archive, last night, and you didn't see fit to offer to help, like any of the Sysop's should have, that knew how to do it. That is one of your obligations in taking the job. If you didn't know or think that, you do now. I can't do anything to save you now, Colin. Your attitude marks you as someone not really needed here anymore, more a part of the problem, rather than the solution. It makes me sad, but it is now up to Andy to decide. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and Copyright (Zach Johnson) ==
''This is a copy of the post from Aschlafly's talk page. TK insisted that I post it here, too.''
{{QuoteBox|Since the material was re-worded, perhaps Andy, since he is an Attorney, would be a better judge than Colin, CgDay and you Sid, as to what is wholesale copying, and exactly how much change is needed to avoid infringement suits, eh? Nothing I sourced was from Wikipedia, and I have never seen their material on the subject. --~ TK MyTalk 18:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)}}
As per the above comment, you are strongly invited to take a look at [[Talk:Zach Johnson]]. Short summary: Copyrighted material has been copy-pasted (from a news article and quite likely from Wikipedia) with minor rewordings in some sentences. The material had been added by TK, who is now in a revert war to keep the copyrighted material until somebody creates a better version. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== TK and sarcasm ==
While this is not abuse per say, it is a question of what is the appropriate conduct for a sysop? I continue to be concerned about [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ATheory_of_evolution&diff=95497&oldid=95484 this edit] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473 this edit] which shows a disrespect for other editors on this site. Is this the type of example that is people are suggesting that be followed? (Yes, I know this is a slippery slope) Please picture a website were everyone behaved like TK has in this situation - not the conservative bias, but the disrespect. Is this the type of site that you (the admins) want to present? I am concerned that the admins are turning a blind eye to the sysops and allowing them free reign - they can do no wrong. This in turn makes it a very hostile and uncomfortable place for anyone who is not a sysop. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I feel uncomfortable here all the time, pretty much the same as at Wikipedia. The only difference is that it's much worse there.

:I disagree with the policy here which permits random newbies to start editing right away. I really hate all the backbiting, backstabbing, character assassination; carping, caviling, sneaky undermining, etc.!

:If it were up to me, I'd block much more aggressively than I have been.

:Maybe I'll just start doing that . . . --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I think you ought to, Ed. I don't want you to feel uncomfortable here, as you are one of our best editors. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Yes Mtur! ''Not at all like your Sterling good behavior.'' We are appointed to keep the place on-policy, and on-track as friendly to the Conservative and Christian POV, as well as guard against Vandals. Either overt, ''or covert''. Get used to it. You, and others constantly disrespect people whose POV you disagree with. You are just sly and subtle doing it. You don't want to accept this is never going to be run like Wikipedia. Perhaps your energies could be used constructively, rather than just carping about what you don't like, and parroting the party line of those who you agree with? I am indeed sorry if you cannot accept some measure of levity, used to defuse a possibly explosive situation. It must get lonely in the Ivory Tower (that was more humor). Ed Poor, you should chat up the Webmaster, ask him about the situation in IRC with some of these people, it will be instructional, I am sure. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: TK, could you please point to any edits where I have been disrespectful to anyone? I have been 'online' for nearly two decades now (my first experiences were with a 300 baud modem and acoustic coupler to an 8 port BBS chat line) and I am well aware that when there are no body language or voice inflection cues, it is very easy for someone to misinterpret the emotion of the person on the other end of the text connection. Smilies or a j/k can help give a hint about what the person is writing. However, just with real life, if everything is said with such a wink, people begin to not take anything that person says seriously. I remain curious as to how any of these edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=95473] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=84553&oldid=84515] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sysop_and_Admin_Abuse&diff=86432&oldid=86373] were designed to be a measure of levity that would reduce the heightened emotions? Or where they written with the intent to enrage emotions? I cannot tell, and it remains up to the individual to determine if they are to see the best in someone or the worst in someone. I do not believe I am capable of writing anything that would have any emotional encumbrance that you would regard as not being insulting (I am not not trying to be insulting in this passage, just trying to state my perceptions) and thus attempt to remove any emotion from what is written. I may have a point of view and an opinion, but getting red in the face and pounding away at the keyboard is something I learned not to do on Usenet a decade and a half ago.
:: I am curious as to how you see this being run, if not like Wikipedia. What are the social norms? What are the rules? There are certainly more rules than have been set down in [[rules]]. When I am comfortable in understanding these rules and I have made the judgment as to if this is a place that I ''want'' to contribute to, then I shall. Until then, I find the community that is in the process of forming these rules to be incredibly interesting. Furthermore, I feel that it is more useful to help the community codify those rules as a place where any user can understand what is going to happen if he or she does something than it would be to go forth and write documents. As it is, there is still a bit of hostility to many of the writers of new material here. If you search [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=Mtur&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 my contributions], you will see that I have contributed some to new material - there are a few articles that I've commented with as "rewrite." --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 22:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*So, your time online mirrors my own, Mtur. I assume we are more or less contemporaries. The joke about Martha Stewart was indeed designed to defuse, however I can see someone who is defensive or indignant in their opinion thinking the comment was aimed at them, and that I certainly didn't want to happen. Maybe you don't watch much TV or know of her. However, you being online as long as you have, certainly know of this old dodge of blind-siding people as you did above, to support the views of those you agree with by making a public post, instead of privately contacting me and asking what I meant first. I have seen much of your work that is to be admired, your manipulative tactics, posted above, are not a part of that admiration. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

: As I have stated [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk%3ATeamwork&diff=90300&oldid=90283 elsewhere], I prefer all communication to be public (perhaps I should put that on my user page too). As such, it remains difficult for me or anyone else to attribute something other than what I have said to me. It also constantly reminds me that I am in a public place and to be on my behavior - there will always be someone looking to trap me in words if I misspeak. I ask of you, have I shown you less respect or treated you with less dignity than you have shown me in the past? Alternatively, if I was to make the same comments you have made in the past, would I be banned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 23:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I don't ban people except for vandalism and the like. I have blocked users, shortly, when I know they are creating havoc, or doing things to marginalize Conservapedia. I certainly have posted several times, quite publicly, in opposition to some Sysop's actions, etc. This you well know. Spirited discourse is how I was raised. I was schooled by Jesuits. So, no, you wouldn't be banned for talk, of course not. I know of only one Sysop who has banned for talking. As I said, I publicly disagreed. But your argument about keeping everything publc puzzles me, from a logic point of view. Anyone can make up anything, and say it came from me or you, if they have a mind to. So to use that as an excuse to actually lessen dialog, seems odd to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 23:06, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The above statement by TK is quite misleading ... While it was quickly reversed when the error was pointed out, TK blocked me without even checking to see if I was the offending user. I think sysops should have the basic skills and knowledge to do a little fact/history checking before running to the block button. I'm sure I'm not the first one TK has blocked by accident, then tried to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Hojimachong&diff=137248&oldid=137232 cover it up] instead of adding an apology comment. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:51, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

*Jrssr, you have now earned another, not mistaken, block. ''Your statement above is totally false'', showing an edit of mine, where I decided to be more temperate, and not bring up the fact you could have been blocked by Hoji for name-calling, and that any Sysop still could, and implying it had something to do with your mistaken blockage of how long? You are disingenuous, and that will not be tolerated. Blocks do no "damage" whatsoever. You are building red herring non-issues to be inflammatory. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking of NousEpirrhytos ==

I would like a comment on this situation, Nous was apparently banned for "attacks on the Bible" by Karajou, which apparently relates to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Bible#Name this conversation] in which Nous expresses scholarly disagreement with the concept of Biblical literalism.

Even more disturbingly, users questioning Karajou's actions on his talk page have been informed by User:TK that regular users have no business questioning administrative actions. When asked if ''"Andy's promised freedom of speech excludes questioning or criticizing the Bible"'', user:TK responded ''"Yes indeed, that is exactly what I meant"''. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*When quoting someone, Nematocyte, could you please not edit their quotes? Some might think you did it deliberately, to stir the pot, and we wouldn't want that, eh? And if you are going to complain about more than one Sysop, please make more than one header, one for each complaint. Thank you. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Do you disagree with the content of my condenced quote? Do you not intend to imply those things? In any case, I am not making a complaint against you, as you have not performed an administrative action in this case, only commented. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:37, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ahhh....just another snipe. I see. Very good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 10:38, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you disagree with my summation? Do you disagree that administrative comments on the case are relevant? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:39, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::For the love of mud, TK, answer the user's questions rather than bickering. Nematocyte is being '''incredibly''' reasonable here. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed, I would rather see answers than this pointless "sniping." [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, [[User_talk:Karajou#Blocking|this is what we got so far]]. Answers would indeed be nice. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Some of the Sysops seem fairly trigger-happy right now. Petrus and NousEpirrhytos were completely undeserving of banning. This along with the un/blocking of AmesG and PalMD give me pause for thought as to what is happening on this site at the moment. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 12:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well, if you read some of TK's latest comments, that's exactly what it's supposed to do. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::According to some of TK's recent comments, one could conclude that this page should be speedily deleted - who are we to question or even criticize sysop decisions? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::I don't see what banning Petrus and NousEpirrhytos was meant to accomplish. It seems to me these bans were pointed at silencing their ''opinion'', rather than promoting '''good faith'''. Is this what I am supposed to take from this? And in the case of PalMD, running off someone with knowledge of the field because he disagrees with your ''opinion'', seems like a fairly poor way to run a site. What are we supposed to think of a site that does this? I know we all hate Wikipedia, but is it a liberal value to allow dissent? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:While we're quoting, here is Karajou's reaction. It can be found on [[User talk:Karajou#Blocking|his User Talk page]] and on [[Talk:Bible]]:
{{QuoteBox|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. The above individuals who have come here to Conservapedia specifically to edit the [[Bible]] article have attempted the same thing. Rather than prove God doesn't exist, they went after His word, repeatedly questioning it, questioning the evidence supporting it, belittling any answer which came their way...and at one point I was accused of the bias. This is going to stop. Either accept the Bible as it is, or leave. I only banned one individual when it started getting sour. This is Conservapedia...it is not "Liberalpedia".}}
:Just copy-pasting it here since it's quite relevant in my eyes. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:49, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Note: The other person addressed in this is [[User:Petrus]], who also participated in the [[Talk:Bible]] discussion (and who got [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Petrus perma-banned] by TK recently for a similar-sounding reason). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:51, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Is there somewhere else we can post this where it will get a response from somebody, or am I just being impatient? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:59, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:Sorry, this is pretty much the final destination of all sysop complaints. The previous station had been Andy's talk page (but the big box at the top now says to duke it out here and not there), and the only other option would be the Student Panel. And don't hold your breath. I don't honestly expect something to happen (though I still hope so) - look at the other complaints here (and on Conservative's extra-page). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:08, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Faith is important to most Americans. Any attempt to undermine faith will be frowned upon here, particularly if directed '''towards''' any particular user. I have tolerated much sarcasm, misdirection, fooling around, and so forth without really being forceful - and been told repeatedly by senior staff that my lenience is not acceptable. I would like to make it possible for liberals or dissenters to participate, because I hate to see anyone marginalized. Believe me, I know how it feels.

::But how many of you whom I have defended have ever expressed a single word of gratitude for all the hospitality you have received here? Go read the story of Jesus and the 10 lepers before you say another word about "abuse". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:45, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Two users were banned infinitely for the Bible talk (Did you read it?). THREE users were banned for questioning Karajou's behavior. I was among them, and ironically enough, I got banned right after my cry for help to you. <s>Thanks for your great support here, Ed. And thanks for letting us "liberals" and "dissenters" participate.</s> Oh wait. My bad, no sarcasm on Conservapedia. So yeah. Three people get banned for trying to defend two people who got banned (and are still perma-banned). It's a good thing that I don't really care how often I get banned - otherwise I'd really look the other way the next time I see abuse. And yes, I'm slightly bitter. Please don't ban me for it, I'll possibly get better if I can go a few hours or even days without getting banned. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:13, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh we are aware of just how <s>hostile</s> hospitable we have received here. Maybe its being forgotten in all of this but the editors of this site are giving something extremely valuable with our contributions. Without the editors there is NOTHING here, this place needs us far more than we need it. What do we really gain by contributing here? A place to voice our ideas? Not really, wikipedia would be the place to go for that. No, most of us originally came here as contributors. This love it or leave it attitude isn't going to fly. If all of us leave conservapedia we are not harmed in anyway, but if all of us leave conservapedia it is fatal. So who needs who? Who should be thanking who? [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 15:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Let us not forget in all of this that a user was banned for idealogical reasons by self-conscious sysop. NousEpirrhytos should be unbanned now, or we need to toss out the conservapedia commandments and just leave it as "All editors are equal but some are more equal than others" and bask in the warming glow of censorship, authoritarianism, capriciousness, and hypocrisy. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 16:01, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'll also add Petrus' ban for review. It appears that he was also banned for this, although by another sysop (TK). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==I will just assume bad faith==
on the above issue. since there is no effort to respond, from Andy, Ed or TK. good to know. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:11, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:'''Myk just got banned for one month for questioning Karajou (see his talk page and Bible talk).'''
:Writing quick, I might be next. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, me too, probably. I just posted on Andy's page. Apparently we can't ask questions either. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Kinda sad that you can effectively be blocked for asking "Why?" after a sysop did something... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. Just...wow. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:22, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

(reading up) No effort to respond? Do you have any idea how many pages are on my watchlist? Try leaving a note on my [[user talk page]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Ed, I don't think Flippin really meant you, at least I wouldn't include you on the list, you've responded more than any other on that list<s> (by responding, I mean actually responding and not just whining like a little kid)</s>. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==This will probably earn me a ban==
but why was Sid banned by Karajou? Could someone just explain how his actions harmed conservapedia? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Dissent is against conservative values. [[User:Etaroced|Etaroced]] 13:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::Dissent's not so bad; stupidity might be frowned upon. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::...please tell me that you didn't just call me stupid and that I simply misunderstood your words in the context... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:24, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I appologize if/when I (may) offended (with all pertinent disclaimers). I thought the subject had been banned, so trashing him was ok. I dissent from my previous statement. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
: re. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]]'s comment: Seconded. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 13:36, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ed Poor and Reginold==
'''Please keep posts in chron order!'''

Ed Poor banned [[User:Reginod|Reginold]] because he didn't apologize for <s>that offended Ed Poor</s> putting words in Ed Poor's mouth, twice (as stated on the block log), even though a well stated apology is on [[User talk:Reginod‎|his talk page]]. Perhaps I will follow; I can't tell. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*Avoid insults/snipes, stick to the facts, don't become idealogically biased against Conservative and Christian principles and avoid never-ending arguments and reverts, and I don't think you will have a worry. If you don't, you will be counting the days down. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, what I said was ''put words in my mouth twice - did not apologize''. That is not the same as "comments that offended me". Your comment here is tantamount to an accusation. Please clarify your remarks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:35, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::He did apologize, though, didn't he? [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 18:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry that I misrepresented your block log comments; I was focused more on the apology that is quite extensive on his talk page. As for TK's comment below, I see I have been placed on the [[Conservapedia:Abuse]] immediately after posting this message, which is an interesting commentary on [[justice]] on Conservapedia. (I also hope that you all blank your User pages in deference to the Virginia Tech victims as I have.) [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 18:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

*I would be a mistake to connect dots, Sterile. I have been down the hall, in meetings, since I posted, so I am not aware of you being "watched". Those kinds of comments, made by a Sysop, you would be posting about, calling them unfair, eh? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not going to comment. The environment here is too hostile, and again I fear I will be interpreted. Instead, I think this afternoon when I get a chance, I'll write an article for [[justice]] and get off the 90/10 list, and be proactive instead of defensive. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 08:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ed Poor ==
This is what Ed Poor wrote in a debate page "We should just blast you all into smithereens, you humorless bastards! BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!! --Ed Poor 14:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)" Doesn't this warrant a ban? Or can I say bastard without getting into trouble? --[[User:FredK|FredK]] 14:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
::That was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Should_some_of_the_Sysops_on_here_Lighten_Up%3F&diff=140624&oldid=140266 here]. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
: If I interpret 'BOO-WAH-HAH-HAH!!!!' correctly, as evil laughter, then it would seem to mitigate. Anyway, [[User:RSchlafly]] swore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ASigmund_Freud&diff=133574&oldid=133325 here] to no repercussions, so it would seem that it is condoned. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

*I fail to see swearing at the link provided, Wikinterpreter. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Uh, here, TK:

'But Freud's work was crap,'

--Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

:I intend to follow this up by referring to a female wolf as a bitch. Next month, I'll refer to a male chicken as a cock. Lighten up, eh? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I someone here thinks using the word "crap" is swearing, I submit you are far too sheltered and unworldly to venture out onto the Internet. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

: So what's the point in Commandment Number 3, then? Where do we draw the line? Because if not, then it's a load of ... oh, well I won't stoop to that level. Is this a confirmation that the use of the words 'crap' and 'bastard' is sanctioned by two admins? --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Aschlafly ==
Aschlafly was acting like a bully. He's apparently the owner of this site, so he'll get away with it, but he [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Notice_of_likely_blocking pushed around] me & [[user_talk:1048247| 1048247]] pretty ruthlessly & without cause. When confronted about it, he told me to leave his talk page, and discuss any problems on the article talk page itself, which [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Alexander_Hamilton he has not done], instead [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alexander_Hamilton&action=history reverting] without explanation on the talk page. I think this is inappropriate behavior for an admin. As I said, nothing will get done about it, but I think he needs to know that it creates a bad work environment. Of course, I can't tell him that on his page without getting blocked, so this will have to do. I'm new to the site, but already I can tell that. Doesn't that tell ''you'' something?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:I've been here for a couple of months and have nothing but good things to say about Andy. I have created new articles, edited some, suggested news articles for the Breaking News section, etc. In other words, I've made several positive contributions to this site without engaging in the endless debates and discussions on contentious talk pages. I've also been watching Andy's talk page, and I've seen the vandalism on this site as well as the constant badgering that he has to deal with on a daily basis. BillBuck, I have seen your side of this issue, and I disagree. I believe Andy is very tolerant of other editors and I fully support his actions. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 13:50, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
That sounds like he's tolerant of people he agrees with. The test of tolerance & kindness isn't how you behave towards your friends. It's how you treat others with whom you differ in significant ways. One of the many remarkable things about Christ was that he treated all men equally; if He had only shown favor & friendship towards His disciples, it wouldn't have been that impressive. Although I'm glad it's been a positive experience for you.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 13:58, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:"Kind of a bully", huh? Where did I here that before....hmmm...was it Chip Berlet, [http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/the_things_peop.html] author of [http://www.organizenow.net/cco/right/propanalysis.txt Introduction to Propaganda Analysis] who "recommends the terms 'bullying' and its variants". Wanna see a few thousand diffs to make the point? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:40, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

What?! I don't see the relevance.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 14:45, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:We've heard it all. And the cookie cutter textbook buzzwords and phrases just don't get attention anymore. It's kinda like Pavlov's dogs or the boy who cried wolf, after hearing the same stuff over and over again, eventually you just don't hear it.

:Let me give a real simple example. This page is for sysop abuse. Your opening sentence is uncivil and a personal attack. Why should I read '''''any''''' further? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:01, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I've changed the tone so that the personal attack is gone. I'm sure you'll be interested in reading the rest, now. I think it's sad, though, that you'd ignore criticisms after a while: just like the boy that cried wolf, you might miss it when it's the real thing. Also, since this is the first I've heard of it, it's news to me.-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 15:04, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*So, when "caught" you now show your revisionist stripes, change the tone, and want to continue your ad hominem attack? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

Is anyone going to address the substantive complaint? So far only RobS and TK have, and just to suggest a nicer approach (which I took to heart) or mock me (which I won't). Won't someone address the substance?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 18:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*By "substance" you wish to have addressed your totally subjective, personal opinion, that Andrew Schlafly is a "bully"? That is my understanding. Is it correct? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Moving on...

I mean that he doesn't care what other people have to say. And blocks them when they disagree with him. I mean, you've been here longer than me, so prove me wrong, but first impressions are really hard to shake, you know?-[[User:BillBuck|BillBuck]] 19:26, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: I appreciate the support here. It's obvious to me that Bill is yet another liberal who may delight in pretending otherwise. Bill, I'm going to check your edits now but if you're violating the 90/10 [[rule]] and don't correct that violation soon, then you will be blocked as others have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

: Follow-up: after a quick look at Bill's edits, I estimate only about 10% could possibly be substantive. Next I'll check those substantive edits (a grand total of 5) and see what they were.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*You forgot to add "Moving on..." Andy. That apparently is another Liberal device to avoid directly answering. :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:22, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*He's blocked for three days for picking a fight. He could have handled it a lot better than he did. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:35, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:*Aren't there still boards out there that welcome the constant fighting and never-sending debate? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
:**Look at his edits to William Rehnquist and Anton Scalia. Not bad. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=William_Rehnquist&diff=prev&oldid=142314] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=prev&oldid=142318] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:51, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm sure those fighting boards are at Wikipedia. When it comes to people here wanting to start a fight, it has to be put down immediately and not escalate. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:56, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Unlike you or I, Karajou, Andy is used to teaching young students, and that is why he appears (to me at least) to be if anything, overly tolerant of "spirited" discussion of a kind that always seems to turn into personal insults against him, or worse, insults to his family. I guess some here would faint dead-away to learn some of us wouldn't tolerate more than one paragraph of personal insults, compared to the pages Andy tolerates. I do always get a chuckle when sections like this, once the perpetrator is called out, and no longer is free-posting complaint after complaint, they flee. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:06, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Okey, I'm bit lost now... This is Administrative Abuse page isn't it? And when people post here it's usually because they had an fight with an sysop. If posting here only gets the complainer to be banned for causing more fighting then what is the use to have these pages? I don't know if the former complainer for example had specially good reason to complain, but he did it quite civil and would have hoped that using these pages for what they are meant to wouldn't have just caused more trouble for him. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

:TK's got a good point; many of these are young people are anxious to learn the rhetorical arts, and we can show them how to be effective. It doesn't matter what your ideology is. A look at his contribs is impressive. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*I am lost too. Is it at all possible you are so specious that you cannot tell the difference between someone complaining, and offering totally subjective, context-specific "evidence" to advance what is purely personal opinion, and something that is substantive, and possibly something that is truly questionable? This whole topic is mostly filled with personal opinions, highly subjective complaints, mainly of personal style, rather than specific, verifiable accusations of "wrong doing". It should more accurately be titled "X did something I am mad at, and I want attention!". Perhaps I need to make "rules" for this page, more narrowly defining what is and is not something that rises to the the proper definition of "abuse", since so very few seem to know what the word actually means. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:18, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

I think thats an good idea TK, as i must admit that i thought i did, but seams some people have very different opinion on this subject. Mayby some clarification would be good for everyones sake. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, I don't like fights; that point is clear. I also don't like people escalating those fights, and I have put a stop to the fights, usually by blocking. I honestly don't like doing that. But a fight must be put down before it gets out of hand; it cannot continue from the main page and escalate here, and that comes from having seen it and stopping it in police work. The individual causing such a fight needs to follow the rules for this site as well as the sysops (myself too) need to follow some good rules on stopping the fight. If TK can make those specific rules, I will follow them. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:25, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

*Karajou, I certainly hope you were not thinking anything I posted was directed at you, because it most certainly was not. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, I didn't take it that way. My thinking was that what you said was meant to improve our own performance overall. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:20, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Karajou, I hope you realise that a fight involves at least two people and you have blocked just one. This page is for people who wish to make a complaint about something, and wish it to be looked at fairly by a third party(ies). Blocking one side of an argument doesn't immediately solve the argument (if anything it is much much worse leading to alienation and frustration). Regardless of who the complaint was directed at the argument should have been looked at objectively not just torn apart by any member of the "I love Schlafly" squad. Looking at what happened, it seems that the complaint was totally disregarded with preference to a set of ad hominem attacks on both the argument and the complainant. Surely you must see this defeats the whole point of this page? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

==Swearing==

There are levels of "swear" words. I got "bastard" from a divinity student who later became academic dean of a small theological seminary. He translated the Latin ''Nihil illegitimati carborundum'' as "don't let the bastards wear you down."

Clearly, much of the "abuse" complaints here are actually protests against policy itself - not reports of policy violations by staff. It's part of the general adolescent angst endemic amoung Liberals. All authority is evil and suspect and deserves to be torn down.

The hypocrisy of this is the utter disregard of the evils of slavery in the Sudan, the double standard of enjoying electricity and fresh food in the West (while Africans should go without), and the neglect (amounting to censorship) of the totalitarian abuses of socialists.

What the heck is that all about? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:48, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:They hate the word "conservative" in Conservapedia; they think that this is a free and open wiki; they think that no one is in charge; they think that this should be a free-for-all in which whatever it is they believe in should be shoved down our throats, and if we prevent that, why they cite free speech violations. These people have to be told otherwise, one way or the other. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:25, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Hi Ed, might be better on a debate page, but I'd love to address some of these topics. First of all, I do not feel a special existential angst similar to that in my youth, but I have seen many abuses of authority over the years. This has led me to believe that not all conservatives are bad people, but that people in power can, if unchecked, use it poorly (no pun intended ;-) ). If you look at the case of Fargo, ND, they raised their speeding fines by about 100% a few years back. That's all well and good in theory, except it violates the state law, and now they are going to have to pay the overage (based on five years of tickets) back. The authority issue comes in because they did so knowingly---they would not let defendants see a judge, they increased the overall number of tickets by almost half again and they have now spent (no kidding) thousands of state taxpayer dollars trying to keep my sister-in-law from getting back $86 in wrongful fines. Have you ever heard of a traffic ticket that has yielded over 300 man-hours of legal work by a state?

::Abuses like these are why I became a liberal. I have seen many such instances and realized that too much authority in one person's hands makes for a dangerous situation. I regard the evils of slavery as a real threat to our security--more so than Iraq.

::Not all authority need to be torn down, but it ''deserves'' questioning and a watchful eye. I don't hate George Bush anymore than I hate Mother Teresa (I didn't hate her either), but asking tough questions is my duty as a citizen.

::Finally, I think you have a point when you say many of the questions here are about policy. I won't spend all day on bias, but it is very difficult to measure bias. Writing it into an article--possible, but how do please the more conservative among you as well as the more moderate? Once that dis-equity is designed, can it really be self-sustaining? I am here to see if any of you can actually do what you intend, or if eventually, you will create something nearly identical to wikipedia without blocking, protecting and guarding everything. Good comment Ed, but I hope you appreciate my position. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:31, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*I hate to be the one to break it to you, Flippin, but the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives. And if they self-designated themselves as such, they are wrong. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:Ed, I don’t think this is a particularly liberal way of thinking (look at how conservatives treat liberal authority figures on this site)—I think it is human to want to see those you disagree with have less power (how many Conservatives do you think would support warrantless wiretapping in 2009 if a Democrat is in the White House (especially if Hilary is there), and how many Liberals who opposed it when Bush did it will change their minds?). So, yes I have no doubt that there are some liberals on this site who would like to see the current people in charge have less power. I freely admit I’d like the religious conservatives to have less power here and those with more libertarian leanings to have more (I want people who agree with me to have more power).
:But I also think that part of the problem is that the rules are unclear. I might have thought that the words in question above amounted to foul language and some sysops may have enforced the rule that way (say I used those words to describe my opinions of YEC how long do you honestly think t would take before that earned me a ban?). There are clear double standards on what is acceptable here, at least in terms of how some of the rules are enforced, and that bothers people especially those who get the bad side of that deal.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:05, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:*I agree, Reginod. Religion and political issues bring out the worst in people. Those of us who have had a "professional" involvement positively cringe at the thought of getting involved with "the public" about political things, as most are at best disingenuous and at worst totally unscrupulous, in discussing all things political. Not to mention most citizens, either here or the UK, are woefully ignorant of the whole process. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:18, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

::Reginod, the example you cite is an extrememly poor one; warrantless wiretaps have been '''legel''' since 1938. Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt authorized by Executive Order wiretaps on American citizens, and he approved '''foreign''' Intelligence doing it. Why isn't this commonly known? Why liberal media bias, of course. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:47, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree. FISA requires a warrant for wiretaps and outlines exactly under what circumstances a warentless wiretap is allowed. FISA post-dates 1938 and so any conflict between it and a 1938 executive order would come out in favor of FISA, more importantly FISA is a law, not an executive order, and laws have more legal weight than executive orders. But, I think that strays from the main point I was trying to make.
:::I gather that you support President Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps in the War on Terror? If Hillary Clinton (or Obama, or Edwards, or any other Democrat) were elected President in 2008, would you support her use of the same program? Would you want a President Hillary Clinton to have the power to wiretap any phone that she or her administration deemed potentially relevant in the War on Terror? My suspicion is that the answer there is no (if it isn’t I think you will find yourself in the minority among Conservatives). My point was that Conservatives tend to support Bush’s use of the program because his views and theirs line up—they like a person with their views in power, and trust him to use it well—whereas Liberals tend not to support Bush’s use of the program because they have different views from him—they don’t like a person with views that different from their own, using that much power. Likewise most Conservatives would not support a Liberal President using the exact same program, whereas most Liberals would find themselves supporting a Liberal President using that same program. Humans, Liberal or Conservative don’t like people who have views different from their own welding power (that was my point).
:::I personally don’t want anyone using such a program, since I tend to be distrustful of the police power of the state in general (but that’s not especially relevant, I just figured it was only fair to be frank about where I was coming from).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::FISA only applies to US counterintelligence operations, it does not cover cooperative sharing agreements between NATO allies. When NSA suspects an American, through a cooperative sharing agreement, NSA can request British MI-5 to perform the wiretap, hence it is not a US federal government agency performing the tap. Once MI-5 retrtieves the material, through an international intelligence sharing agreement they share the intelligence product with NSA. A similiar program exists in Great Britain with a reciprocal arangement. You will recall, it was very recently reported CIA tapped Prince Di's; stop and think momentarily, what use would CIA have in tapping Princess Di? None, whatsoever, except British intelligence couldnt do it themselves, and it certainly would be a scandal if revealed. It was a reciprocal cooperative sharing agreement. Forget FISA. It does not apply in the issue of so-called "domestic spying". FDR made legal prior to WWII, and has been legel ever since. All the other stories about FISA are simply disinformation to hide the true basis of the how the program operates, and how its done legally.

::::As an aside, an item of Impeachment against Richard Nixon claimed he authorized domestic wiretaps on US citizens; if this is an impeachable offense for failing to protect American citizens rights, imagine what FDR did, in peacetime, authorize domestic wiretaps '''''against US citizens by a foreign government'''''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:44, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don’t know the full details of the program getting all the media coverage—I was under the impression that it didn’t involve the kind of information sharing that you describe (I am under the impression that you are quite right, if it was the sort of behavior you describe it would be legal). But, as I said, I think that is a side point.
:::::For the record, let me be clear I don’t want any President (or any President’s administration) having the power to tap phonelines without some form of oversight from the judicial branch (I’d prefer something stronger than FISA, personally) -- Bush, Nixon, FRD, Clinton, you name them I don’t want any of them having that kind of power (the police power of the executive is incredibly prone to abuse and I want it at all times to be checked by at least one, and preferably two, of the other branches of our government).
:::::Let me get back to my point—would you want, should she become President, Hilary Clinton’s administration to have the power to wiretap phones of Americans without any judicial oversight? I assume the answer is no, because I assume most people don’t want those ideologically different from themselves to have that much power.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:59, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::First of all it isn't president bush deciding who to wiretap, and who not to wiretap. Secondly, I would support the same program with a democrat as president. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Let me clarify I was using “President Bush” as a “controller-for-controlled” metonymy[http://www.sil.org/lingualinks/lexicon/MetonymiesInEnglish/WhatIsAControllerForControlled.htm] —if that was a source of confusion I apologize.
:::::I think you are in the minority (conservative or liberal) in supporting such a program under both Republican and Democratic presidencies, but I applaud your logical consistency. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:28, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

:::"the actions you cite in Fargo, are certainly not those of Conservatives" How you could no thank boggles the mind. Maybe self-deceit is not just a "liberal trait." Sometimes I think you just make broad pronouncements to sound important. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:09, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

*That is just the point, Flippin. We Conservatives find that all people are important, unlike Liberals. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:27, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

----
'''Getting off topic'''
We're going to have to end this debate here, and choose another page (a talk page at that) for this discussion. This page is supposed to be for abuse of admin/sysop authority, and should remain as such...so, if everyone pleases...(it was a good debate, by the way!) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Roman Catholic Church

2007-05-03T14:31:24Z

MatteeNeutra:

The '''Catholic Church''' is, literally, the ''Universal Church'' of Jesus Christ (from the Greek ''katholikos'', "universal").

The [[Nicene Creed]], the great historical statement of Christian belief, contains the line "I [or we] believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic church". The [[Apostles' Creed]] contains a similar affirmation. However, Protestants and Catholics place different interpretations on the term "Catholic" (or "catholic"). Protestants believe that it refers to the general, over-arching spiritual unity of all Christians which transcends individual churches and denominations. Catholics, on the other hand, believe that the [[Roman Catholic Church]], as the single true church founded by Christ, ''is'' the universal Catholic Church. Some prefer not to refer to their own church as the "Roman" Catholic Church, on the grounds that such formulations implicitly deny this point of doctrine.

[[Image:Cerro_de_Angeles.jpg|right|thumb|Cerro de los Angeles, Madrid, Spain.]]

==Different churches==

The Roman Catholic Church historically regarded Protestant Christianity as heretical, that is, being against Church doctrine. However, this changed in the 1960's when Pope John XXIII called the Second Vatican Council, where the doors of the Church were opened wide, and Protestants referred to as "our separated brethren". This was an exciting period for Catholics and Protestants alike as moves were made to bring the separated churches back together.

[[Image:JpII.jpg|right|thumb|John Paul II]]

The Anglican Church (Episcopalian in the United States) occupies an odd situation, because it encompasses within it factions ("Low Church") that emphasize its Protestant aspects and factions ("High Church") that emphasize its Catholic aspects. Anglo-Catholics regard the Anglican church as part of the Catholic Church, and in the unbroken line of the Apostolic Succession. The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern branches take a position that could be described as saying that the Anglican Church is almost but not quite Catholic. There have long been unification overtures, and Anglican priests who wish to adopt Catholic Holy Orders are often provided with an abbreviated path to that goal.

==Controversy==

There has been much controversy in recent years about Catholic priests in relation to the abuse of children in their care. Cases of pedophilia and ephebophilia have both been discovered in many churches across the world<ref>http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex.htm</ref>. Many instances of abuse occurred over long periods of time, with little or no repercussion for priests involved. In some cases, bishops were aware of the abuse but did not effectively deal with it, allowing the abusive priest to continue to remain in contact with minors.
[[Image:Virgen.jpg|right|thumb|Virgin Mary and Child]]

== See also ==

*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Vatican City]]
*[[Pope John Paul II]]

==External links==

*[http://tcrnews2.com/VaticanCouncil2.html The Reasons for the Second Vatican Council]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/vonbalthasarfathers.html The Fathers, the Scholastics, and Ourselves ]
*[http://tcrnews2.com/predestination.html Ruminating on Laughter, Predestination, Mystery ]

==References==

<references/>
[[Category:Christianity]]

Harvard abortion study

2007-05-02T17:18:39Z

MatteeNeutra: fixed heavily misleading "see also" section

{{controversial}}

A group of researchers<ref>None of the researchers hold positions in oncology (the branch of medicine that studies cancer), and one of the researchers is a nutritionist.</ref> at the Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School, operating under a government research grant, claim that a group of relatively young nurses show no increased incidence of [[breast cancer]] from [[abortion]].<ref>The full text of the study is available for a $15 charge at http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814</ref>

The average age of diagnosis of breast cancer in America is 61 years old.<ref>http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20050922/fewer-american-women-dying-of-breast-cancer</ref> But the average age of participants in this study who had an abortion was only 42 years old,<ref>Michels K. Induced and Spontaneous Abortion and Incidence of Breast Cancer Among Young Women. Arch. Inter. Med. 2007;167:816 (Table 1).</ref> too young for the average person to develop breast cancer. This age disparity is analogous to an attempt to draw conclusions about heart disease by studying teenagers. However, the authors of the Harvard study asserted that earlier studies that reported that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer had been carried out "largely" on premenopausal women.<ref>''Id.'' p. 820.</ref>

The research report concealed how almost none of the subjects of the study were African American or Hispanic,<ref>The study stated that the subjects were 92% non-Hispanic white; many of the remaining 8% must have been Filipino and other Asian groups, but the study conceals this. For example, 15 percent of the registered nurses in San Diego are Asian or Filipino or other Pacific Islanders.[http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=37f00e50cb995f794d89f677f3c3c05e] More importantly, the researchers conceal the lack of African Americans and Hispanics, merely admitting that "The nurses in our cohort may not be representative of the social classes most likely to use abortion services." (p. 820).</ref> The press reports concealed the lack of African Americans and Hispanics in the study,<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Abortion-Cancer.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref><ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm</ref>

The research data show that '''abortion causes a sharp increase in the deadly progesterone receptor-negative (PR-) breast cancer'''. "Among [[parous]] women [the overwhelming majority of the study], the [hazard ratios] HRs were 1.58 (95% CI, 1.13-2.20) for PR- breast cancer and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.60-1.05) for PR+ breast cancer (P for heterogeneity = 0.002) among women with induced abortion."<ref>Study, p. 817.</ref> However, the press reports concealed this alarming result, making it look like abortion is safe. The report's abstract concealed this important result also.<ref>The misleading study abstract is [http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814 here].</ref>

The research study excluded women who had abortions and then died from breast cancer! The study also excluded women who developed breast cancer early in the follow-up. "During follow-up, we censored women who were newly diagnosed as having breast cancer, had died, or were lost to follow-up."<ref>Study, p.815.</ref> So those who were hurt most by their abortions were excluded, and this skewed the results towards a claim that abortion is safe.

The research study treated women who left the specific question about past induced abortions blank, perhaps due to embarrassment, as though they did not have an abortion.<ref>"Of the 105,716 women included in this analysis, 28,392 did not answer the question on induced abortion but answered the question on spontaneous abortion .... We assumed that the women who answered only half of the question did nto answer the other question because of an oversight or because they felt that the question did not apply to them; we thus coded the missing response as 'no induced abortion.'" (p. 815)</ref> Many would draw the opposite conclusion. Re-categorizing women from "had an abortion" to "did not have an abortion" inflates the numbers of breast cancers by women who ostensibly did not have an abortion. It would then falsely appear that abortion did not cause breast cancer.

Over 25% of the respondents to the questionnaire exhibited confusion about the wording, where the unfamiliar term "spontaneous abortion" was used to mean "miscarriage". <ref>Study, p. 815.</ref> Miscarriages do not increase breast cancer risk, and this deceptive word choice would cause many respondents to mark their prior abortions as "spontaneous abortion" or miscarriage. That would reduce any genuine differences between induced abortion and miscarriages in the observed results.

== References ==

<references/>

==See also==
*[[Abortion]]

==External Links==
[http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/coverup1.htm Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer]

[[Category: Abortion]]

Critical mass

2007-05-02T16:24:10Z

MatteeNeutra:

The amount of a radioactive [[isotopes|isotope]] necessary to cause an explosion due to a chain reaction.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With Physical Science''. Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc. 1999, 2000</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Physics]]

The Innumerable Christ

2007-05-02T16:16:43Z

MatteeNeutra: Rmvd music category

'''The Innumerable Christ''', a poem in [[Scots]] by [[Hugh MacDiarmid]], is one of the most remarkable meditations on the theme of Christian redemption and other worlds:

Wha kens on whatna Bethlehems Earth twinkles like a star the nicht, An' whatna shepherds lift their heids In its unearthly licht? 'Yont a' the stars oor een can see An' farther than their lichts can fly, I' mony an unco warl' the nicht The fatefu' bairnies cry. I' mony an unco warl' the nicht The lift gaes black as pitch at noon, An' sideways on their chests the heids O' endless Christs roll doon. An' when the earth's as cauld's the mune An' a' its folk are lang syne deid, On coontless stars the Babe maun cry An' the Crucified maun bleed.<ref>[http://www.signumrecords.com/catalogue/sigcd096/096Booklet_web.pdf A Web-hosted program] for the above. Requires PDF reader.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Poetry]]

Intolerance

2007-05-01T16:35:06Z

MatteeNeutra: removed a few un-cited sentences.

'''Intolerance''' (opposite of [[tolerance]]) is a refusal to allow other people to express their opinions or to practice their religion.

In [[totalitarian]] countries, the government forcibly suppresses all views which oppose government policy or ideology.
[[Communist]] countries deny the [[freedom of religion]] as well.
Other forms of [[dictatorship]]s permit religious freedom, but are intolerant of any criticism of the government.

Intolerance is also a root of some "[[hate speech]]" rules and laws. Various special interest groups have gotten companies, schools and governments to define any criticism of their group activities as "motivated by hate". Corretta Scott King views homosexual activity the same as an opinion or the practice of religion as the following quote illustrates:

*"[[Homophobia]] is like [[racism]] and [[anti-Semitism]] and other forms of [[bigotry]] in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood." <ref> [http://www.equal-marriage.ca/resource.php?id=317 Coretta Scott King, 1998] </ref>

The error in this argument is obvious. Telling someone about a warning in the Bible is doing them a favor, not expressing hatred toward them. When a teacher instructs a pupil not to steal from others, not to assault them or tease them, these instructions are for the child's benefit.

==Notes==

<references/>

Conversion therapy

2007-04-30T20:24:28Z

MatteeNeutra: spelling

== Introduction ==
Reparative therapy is based on the idea that, at its root, [[homosexuality]] is not a sexual problem – it is a gender-identity problem. Normal stages of emotional development have been interrupted, and this can lead to same sex bonding in order to attain affirmation. These relationships tend to implode, leaving the homosexual hurt and confused. One proponent of the therapy, Dr. Nicolosi, states that there is no such thing as a homosexual, but only heterosexuals that have a homosexual problem. As such, the theory maintains, homosexuality can be "cured" or remedied.<ref>http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=282</ref>

== Opposition ==
Reparative therapy is not accepted as a mainline "treatment." Instead, the [[American Psychological Association]] flatly rejects the theory as insulting, and potentially damaging.<ref>American Psychological Association, "Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth," http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html</ref> Some psychiatrists have lost their licenses for practicing the "therapy," and children have sued their parents successfully for attempting to force them to undergo the treatment.<ref>http://www.washblade.com/2005/7-1/news/national/tenopen.cfm</ref> It is argued that the ideas surrounding reparative therapy are simply attempts to color the "culture war," and score points at the expense of mental health and well-being, as the therapy enforces the idea that homosexuality can be, and should be, cured.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/nyregion/12group.html?ex=1177732800&en=9d531cb626af7ac6&ei=5070</ref> In short, the medical consensus is that the therapy is wrong-headed, produces no results, and is damaging.

== Popular Culture ==
In 2007, the television drama "[[Boston Legal]]" mocked reparative therapy relentlessly.<ref>Boston Legal, "Selling Sickness," season 3, episode 14. Produced by David E. Kelley.</ref> The satirical cartoon comedy, "[[South Park]]," also mocked the therapy, and blamed it for causing suicide in confused and vulnerable young men.<ref>South Park, "Cartman Blows," season 10, episode 2. Produced by Trey Parker & Matt Stone.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Conservapedia:Userboxes

2007-04-30T19:46:48Z

MatteeNeutra:

A "Userbox" is a box placed on a user's main page to express oneself. They can be fun, informative, or whatever the user prefers. This page is an attempt at a comprehensive index. The index is at the bottom - please edit to add ones that you have made (see [[#Adding to index|editing advice]] below).

== Coding Your Page ==
Coding a userbox is easy. Simply code as follows:

''<nowiki>{{userboxtop|Your Name, Title}}</nowiki> 
''<nowiki>{{user ____}}</nowiki> ''
''<nowiki>{{user ____}}</nowiki> ''
''<nowiki>{{userboxbottom}}</nowiki>''

Replace the "____" with the title of the template that you seek to use, from the lists on the sub pages below.

== Coding a New Box ==

It is easy to create your own Userbox. All new userboxes must be templates, created under the title "template:User ____". Experienced coders can change the [[web colors]] using any of the standard hexadecimal color values.

{| cellspacing="1" cellpadding="2" style="background: #99f; colour: #000;"
!style="background: #fff;"|Code
!style="background: #fff;"|Appearance
|-
!colspan="2" style="background: #fff; text-align: left; padding: 0 1em;"|Standard box
|-
|style="background: #fff;"|<tt><nowiki>{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=ID |info=Content}}</nowiki></tt>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}}</nowiki></tt>
|style="background: #fff;"|{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=ID |info=Content}}
|-
!colspan="2" style="background: #fff; text-align: left; padding: 0 1em;"|Reverse box
|-
|style="background: #fff;"|<tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-r |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=ID |info=Content}}</nowiki></tt>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-r |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}}</nowiki></tt>
|style="background: #fff;"|{{Userbox-r |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=ID |info=Content}}
|-
!colspan="2" style="background: #fff; text-align: left; padding: 0 1em;"|Double box
|-
|style="background: #fff;"|<tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-2 |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id1-c=#fff |id1-s=12 |id1-fc=#000 |id2-c=#000 |id2-s=12 |id2-fc=#fff |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id1=ID 1 |id2=ID 2 |info=Content}}</nowiki></tt>
''or'' <tt><nowiki>{{Userbox-2 |side-box 1 colour |main box colour |side-box 1 content |message |side-box 2 content |border colour |side-box 2 colour |main box font-colour |box border thickness}}</nowiki></tt>
 '''''Note''': If omitted, border colour and side-box 2 colour default to the same colour as side-box 1, and font colour is black. Default border thickness is 1.''
|style="background: #fff;"|{{Userbox-2 |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id1-c=#fff |id1-s=12 |id1-fc=#000 |id2-c=#000 |id2-s=12 |id2-fc=#fff |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id1=ID 1 |id2=ID 2 |info=Content}}
|}

== Restrictions on Userbox Material ==
Userboxes may not be profane.

==Language Userboxes==

Please see [[Conservapedia:Babel]] for more information on how to make language userboxes. (Please note that these are not fully implemented yet.)

== Adding to index ==

To add your userbox to any of the index pages listed below, please add it in the following format:

<tt><nowiki>|{{UB</nowiki>|''userbox name''|''parameter 1''|''parameter 2''|help=''instructions''}}</tt>

The pipe character (|) at the start is to start a new cell in the table.

All parameters after the first are optional; simply omit them if not required.

Optional parameters ''parameter 1'' and ''parameter 2'' are used if your userbox takes parameters.

The optional ''help'' parameter is used if the user box needs instructions on how to use it, such as the use of the parameters. Note that this parameter needs to start with <tt>'''help='''</tt>.

'''Simple example'''

:<tt><nowiki>|{{UB|Christian1}}</nowiki></tt>

This will result in:

<blockquote><table class="wikitable"><tr><td>{{UB|Christian1}}</td></tr></table></blockquote>

'''Complete example'''

:<tt><nowiki>|{{UB|Political Compass|x|y|help=''x'' and ''y'' refer to the results of the test at [http://www.politicalcompass.org/].}}</nowiki></tt>

This will result in:

<blockquote><table class="wikitable"><tr><td>{{UB|Political Compass|x|y|help=''x'' and ''y'' refer to the results of the test at [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ www.politicalcompass.org/].}}</td></tr></table></blockquote>

==Userbox Index==

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Christianity|Christianity]]
|-
||[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Computers|Computers]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Conservapedia|Conservapedia]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Creation|Creation]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Donuts|Donuts]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Evolution and Big Bang|Evolution and Big Bang]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Fields of Expertise|Fields of Expertise]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Location|Location]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Politics|Politics]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Religion|Religion]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Sexuality|Sexuality]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Sports|Sports]]
|-
|[[Conservapedia:Userboxes/Uncategorized|Uncategorized]]
|}

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

2007-04-29T21:43:38Z

MatteeNeutra: spelling

Monty Python and the Holy Grail is a film written and produced by the [[Monty python]] comedy team.

The plot centers on the quest for the Holy Grail appointed to [[King Arthur]] Pendragon by [[God]].

BIG Plot Spoiler!!!!

They don't find it.

I'll add more later

Talk:Jesus Christ

2007-04-29T16:58:04Z

MatteeNeutra:

== Abomination! ==

Could Conservapedia provide an article even more so minimizing the Divinity of Jesus Christ? Maybe if we work real hard at it, we can acknowledge him, along with all the other men named Jesus, as mere spokesmen? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Atheists denying existence of historical Jesus?==
I seriously challenge this and would like to see some evidence for it. As the article correctly notes, the historical evidence for the life of Jesus of Nazareth is very good. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:08, 22 February 2007 (EST)

----

The article still says "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously." No source is cited. ''Who,'' exactly, denies the existence of an historical Jesus of Nazareth? If this belief is widely held someone, somewhere ought to have published something about it and the publication ought to be cited.

There's no need to introduce this section with a straw man. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:24, 4 March 2007 (EST)

:Want confirmation of this? Go to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity this section of Wikipedia's article on Jesus]. It's true that some people deny his existence. It's not a widely held belief; it's only held by a small, and I do emphasize ''small'', minority. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:17, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::If you think there is a small minority of people in the world that deny the existence of Jesus then you need to get out of the house a bit more.

::When using Wikipedia as confirmation of a fact, I try to follow the trail of cited sources. In this case, the trail leads to Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Historicity of Jesus], thence to a footnote, which quotes the source as saying

:::The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." - Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

::I don't think "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" supports the statement that "a small minority [of scholars] argue that Jesus never existed as a historical figure..." Neither of the Wikipedia articles names any scholars, or anyone else, who hold that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real figure in history.

::I still will think it's a straw man unless someone produces some reasonably mainstream, reasonably modern examples of people challenging the historicity of Jesus. Wikipedia's neutrality policy says you can include "facts about opinions" when the opinions are ''reasonably'' widely held. I think the idea of there not being an historical Jesus of Nazareth is so rarely held that it is not worth mentioning. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)
::: I think you have serious defintional issues here that may alter whether or not this is at all a commonly held view. For example, do we mean that Jesus is a figure made up out of whole cloth? I don't think anyone seriously argues for that. Do we mean that he is a historical figure but many details of other preachers at the time got glommed onto his life-story? Many more would agree with this. Do we mean that Jesus is a compilation of the lives of a variety of people from that time period and one of their names happened to stick? I think you would get a lot for this last one. So when denying historicity you need to be very careful what you mean. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:15, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: OK. Originally I was commenting on the phrase "Many atheists claim that there is no evidence of Jesus outside the Bible." That has since been softened to "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus." I was, indeed, interpreting this to mean "invented in whole cloth."

:::: If the article were editable I'd propose simply excising the sentence "Occasionally someone denies the existence of Jesus, but few scholars take this seriously" since I don't see that it adds anything to the section. Presumably a finished section would make it clear which details of the Gospel accounts are widely accepted by scholars as historical and which are debated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::The evidence presented so far in the article is hardly compelling. It needs to be expanded, or the assertion that "few scholars take this seriously" will need to be qualified. --[[User:John|John]] 22:52, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Whether there are or are not people who question the historical existence of Jesus is not as important to this article as is the fact that there is no citation of where this claim comes from. Scorpionman, if you are suggesting I should go to Wikipedia to check the information, then what use does this Conservapedia article have in the first place? --[[User:GarbageMan|GarbageMan]] 10:14 5 April 2007 (CST)

Even we Atheists and Jews do not deny the '''existence''' of Jesus, merely the idea that he was the son of God.

== Locked ==

Can someone unlock this article? It needs more information. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 11:21, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Apparently... the key to unlocking this page is true faith.

The very fact that this article is locked means I'm leaving this website and never returning again.

::You Legend

== Josephus ==

The line about Josephus is misleading and false. No doubt you refer to the "Testimoniam Flavianum," in which Josephus trumpets Jesus as the messiah for one paragraph, and then moves on. It's worth noting that the TF is not believed by any serious scholars, and has been shown to be a forgery added by medieval monks... note that this does *NOT* undercut the importance of Jesus at all! He was barely known in his time, and the fact that Josephus wouldn't write about him is unsurprising. Josephus was known to be an anti-revolutionary who hated all the messianic figures of his time, and won his fame by being the lone Jew to decry them...<ref>http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html</ref>

== Worth mentioning? ==
Excuse me, but do you think it's worth mentioning that Jesus was probably Jewish? He merely provided the foundation of Christianity.

: Jewish? ''Jewish''? He was the Son of God, for pete's sake (sorry, nearly used the other, rather more obvious expression)! Haven't you seen all those pictures of him with the fair hair and blue eyes? And so, with Joseph not being his father an' all, he can only have been ''half''-Jewish at best, can he? (pardon my irony!) So it's no wonder, is it, that, thanks largely to Paul, the poor Jews can't make head or tail of what Christians have managed to do with him - let alone with ''their'' scriptures!--[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Wouldn't that be racist? --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:02, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:No. Just taking the p... out of racists! Irony. British thing. Don't worry your head about it! (''Of course'' the man was Jewish!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::Matrilineal descent is what counts, I believe. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:00, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:That's funny - I could have sworn that Matthew traces his descent through his father (or rather through the man who allegedly wasn't his father in the first place) while Luke does the same, but citing an incompatible number of generations and entirely different names! (pardon my irony again!) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::The two theories are:
::1) St. Joseph was adopted, and one lineage is legal heritage
::2) One lineage is that of Our Lady, and the other of St. Joseph
::--[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 13:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, you'd have thought they'd have said so, then, wouldn't you? Especially as they both say it's through Joseph, and there are far more generations in the one than in the other! (Honestly, the squirming that goes on to try and justify Christian dogma in the face of what the scriptures actually say!) ;) --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 13:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== Christ ==

Is this page locked? I thought that perhaps one should add, after explaining that "Jesus" is the Greek form of the Hebrew name "Joshua," that "Christ" comes from the Greek "christos," meaning "the annointed one"

[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 18:35, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Absolutely. Or rather that ''christos'' is the Greek translation of Hebrew ''mashiach'', meaning 'anointed' and thus '[[Messiah]]' (and not, of course, Joshua's surname!!). Ironic, isn't it, that we know the two names mainly through the 'enemy' Greek culture that faithful Hebrews were most anxious to combat at the time? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Christ the Redeemer?? ==

Er...I find it a little bizarre to have a photo, and not a very good one of the Christ the Redeemer sculpture in Brazil as the only picture on this article.

'''A NOTE TO THE ADMINS:''' Why are so many essential articles locked? If someone wanted to vandalise an article on Jesus they'd do it on Wikipedia where they'd get more airtime. This article is so woefully inadequate it's almost laughable. What about the teachings of Jesus, summarised? What about, oh, the prophets of the old testament foretelling his coming? What about the revelation of God's character through the old testament brought to fruition in Christ?

If you want to lock these articles, fine, I don't care. But make sure they're up to scratch before you do so. Otherwise you'll just drive people away like our friend earlier. [[User:Dallas|Dallas]] 07:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:Help for this article is on the way, so be patient! :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:56, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==The name Jesus==

I came across some interesting information, which I've summarised here. If anybody who can edit this page would like to put it in, others might also find it interesting.

Considering that Christianity is 2000 years old, the name Jesus for Jesus Christ is not a very old word in English. In Old English he was called hæland “saviour”, from the Proto-Germanic root hailjan “to heal, to save”.

After the Norman conquest, the French form Iesu or Iesus was adopted. This derived from Latin Iosus, which the Romans adopted from the Greek Iesous. The Greeks derived the name from the late Hebrew or Aramaic name Yoshua, today’s version of which is “Joshua”. The earlier Aramaic form was Jehoshua (Y’hoshua) or Joshua., deriving from Hebrew Jah, short for Jahweh, and Aramaic y’shuoh meaning “salvation”. The name thus meant “Jah is salvation”. Both Joshua and Jehoshua were common names in the time of Jesus.

In 16th century written English both Iesu and Iesus were used, for example in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526. J did not replace I until the 17th century and the form with the final s became common in the 18th century.

In Middle English documents, Jesus was often written IHS, an abbreviation of Greek IHSOYS (Iesous). However, in spoken English between the 11th and 17th centuries, the letter I could sound like either an I or a J, so the pronunciation of Iesus was similar to today’s sound. Welsh still retains the Iesu form but pronounces it “yessy”.

http://www.takeourword.com/Issue068.html

[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 3.51 24 March 2007

:''Very'' interesting, but, alas, factual - so it doesn't have much chance of being included here! --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Birth of Christ ==

Just curious, especially considering how big a deal the A.D./C.E. thing is here, but why is there no mention of Christs Birthdate? Would think its sort of important given how much attention you've been heeding it. Best Scholarly guess seems to be late September in 05 B.C., which is odd I think, since that not only would grammatically read as him being born five years before he was born (a lesser miracle?) but also would imply that A.D. and C.E. are equally, inaccurately, based on the date of Christ's birth, with only A.D. claiming as much, and incorrectly at that.

==Case for Christ==

I am reinserting the reference to ''Case for Christ''. It is not a "book review" to mention the book in one or two sentences. In fact, I think Conservapedia should serve as a jumping off point to further research on subjects, and that book is in itself a jumping off point to further research. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Name of page==

This ought to be Jesus Christ, not just Jesus. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:20, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well from what I understand Christ is a [[Messiah|title]] not part of a name. It would be like renaming the George W. Bush article to President George W. Bush. If you're worried about someone typing in Jesus Christ and not able to get to the article that's not happening as Jesus Christ redirects to Jesus. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 03:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sulgran, it is a highly secular idea of what it means. His name is '''Jesus Christ''' to hundreds of millions of people throughout the World. I don't think some online encyclopedia has a right to truncate his name. As Christians, we hold to these basic tenets:

<blockquote>
Our Core Values

#'''1. We praise Jesus Christ as Lord and savior always'''.
#2. Help others in their time of need, the lost, hungry and weak.
#3. Spread the good news about the Kingdom of Heaven.
#4. Love God the Father with all of our hearts, mind, body, and soul.
</blockquote> --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::5. 5. And ignore all the other 600-odd commandments, apart from:
::6. 6. Be insufferably smug at all times.

:In that case, we should refer to 'King David Christ', too, since he called himself that (in the Hebrew, ''mashiach'') throughout the Psalms. But it wasn't his name, any more than it was Jesus's. The word is a ''Greek translation'', of all things! (But then, to be fair, so is 'Jesus'!). --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Indeed. Christ is an honorific, not a name. In fact, his name was actually Yeshua[[User:Daemon|Daemon]] 12:28, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Well, we are not for everyone. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 09:55, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

As a sysop, I decided that readers looking for information on [[Jesus]] would be better served if they found it in [[Jesus Christ]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals ==

Due to article improvement drive I am unprotecting this article. Please watch for vandals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:08, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Simple Logic?==

I don't see how this phrase:

:"Why would Jesus voluntarily submit to a crucifixion unless it was to be followed by a resurrection?"

is an example of simple logic. There could be any number of reasons why he would submit to his execution. I don't think even Christian's think he only did it to prove that he would be resurrected. He submitted to be executed simply because it would wash away the sins of man. This statement should be removed. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:58, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Spanish Civil War

2007-04-29T13:37:13Z

MatteeNeutra:

{{expand}}

The '''Spanish Civil War''' was a conflict within [[Spain]] between 1936 and 1939 between the Republican forces, a [[left-wing]] coalition including communists and socialists, and the [[fascism|fascist]] Nationalist forces under [[Francisco Franco|General Franco]] comprising generally wealthy [[Monarchy|Monarchists]] and [[Catholicism|Catholics]] who opposed the separatist Republicans.

Volunteers from many nations joined the fighting on both sides, including [[George Orwell]] and [[Laurie Lee]]. and military contingents sent by [[Soviet Union]] fought with the Republicans, while [[Germany]] and [[Italy]] provided forces on the Nationalist side.

[[Ernest Hemingway]] served as a war correspondent during the war.

The Nationalists were eventually victorious, and executed over a hundred thousand of their opponents shortly afterwards.

[[Category:Wars]]

Talk:Homophobia

2007-04-25T19:48:11Z

MatteeNeutra:

This phrase,
*''akin to racism and sexism.''
has been removed. People are not born homosexual as they are born a certain race or sex, and we will be happy to destroy any [[junk science]] citations that make that claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:36, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:The issue of whether people are born homosexual or not does not affect the fundamental similarities between discrimination in terms of gender, race and sexuality. If you want to make an argument for why discrimination based on sexuality is o.k, where as the other two are not, then go ahead and make it and we can discuss whether your right. Otherwise, don't confuse the issues. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 12:42, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:The question of whether one is born homosexual is certainly not a settled matter, in EITHER direction. Your claims of junk science not withstanding. Still, as Orgone points out it is immaterial to the comparison. Would you not consider discrimination against someone based on their religion to be "akin to racism and sexism"? One is not "born Catholic" for example, one has to choose it... how is that any different from your argument? [[User:QNA|QNA]] 13:01, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Deletions?==
Wow, within the last few minutes almost all of the article has been deleted. I thought it was a lot more useful with all that detail and the example of the murder of a homosexual. Why was all of that deleted? I'm not sure the super-conciseness of the article in its current state is in lines with Conservapedia standards. It should be at least longer than a sentence. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:Indeed! The article was starting to take shape before the ever predictable hand of Conservative came in. Why did you delete all of that valid information Conservative? Surely you should have posted on the discussion page '''first''' before simply deleteing it? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Fresh start==

Article should distinguish betweeen
#Accusations of "homophobia" against someone who (A) says that homosexuality is forbidden by the Bible or a church; (B) says that homosexuals can become straight with counseling; or (C) makes any other general statement about homosexuality
#Adverse actions taken against individuals, such as literal [[gay-bashing]], i.e., beating up homosexuals for "looking or acting queer"

Another related topic could be [[Discrimination against homosexuals]].

But we should not adopt the [[gay rights]] perspective which deliberately conflates irrational fear and hatred of people with principled objections to sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Assuming homosexuality is a sin, which not all do. Moreover, does that mean the same people fear and hate "fornicators" the same as homosexuals? I think not. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 12:51, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oh, Colin, I haven't even gotten started yet. I'm planning to open up Pandora's box and jump inside with a big can of DDT. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:Ed regarding your first point, why do we need more than a sentence to distinguish between those things? Why not incorporate it into what was there already. Your second point seems to support my point that Conservative should not have deleted the example I gave of an homophobic attack. I don't think a fresh start is needed and we should work with what is already here! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:59, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's a cite and some material, [http://www.narth.com/docs/coll-breiner.html HOMOPHOBIA: A Scientific Non-Political Definition], Dr. Sander J. Breiner, National Association for Research and Theraphy on Homosexuality, 2003.

:''There is no personal, internal, institutional, or cultural homophobia. The terms do not exist in the recognized scientific literature, as described earlier. There is only one homophobia, which has been properly defined. ... Blumenfeld and others are doing the same with the term homophobia. Their purpose may be sincere and in some contexts useful. However, the approach is unscientific and not useful in the diagnostic/therapeutic sphere. It can even be used by some individuals in an anti-therapeutic manner.

:''Calling all responses to homosexuality other than it "is a normal sexual variation" as homophobic is anti-scientific and decidedly anti-therapeutic.

:''There is no doubt that homophobia exists. There is also no doubt that there are rationalized and irrational anti-homosexual attitudes. However, it would be very valuable for society in general, and therapists in particular, to have a clear picture of homophobia separated from all the other topics that have been lumped under that rubric. With this in mind, let us examine the topic of homophobia, as would be correctly defined and limited as a true phobic reaction.

IOW, homphobia is psychiatric diagnosis, i.e. they are [[handicapped]] persons, and it appears [[bigot]]s are intent upon systematically persecuting and discriminating against these handicapped victims. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:26, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Nonsense, are you joking? Tell me your being sarcastic! There may be nothing inherently immoral with homo'''phobia''' ''per se'', just as there is nothing inherently immoral in '''any phobia''', like arachnophobia, say. But there ''is'' a problem with the discriminatory behavior which may be caused by homophobia, and in condemning this behavior you are not: "''systematically persecuting and discriminating against handicapped victims."'', in the same way that pyromania may be a psychiatric diagnosis, but in condemning people who go around setting fire to buildings, people are not being bigots, they are just pointing out that burning people and their possessions is wrong. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 13:56, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
*''there ''is'' a problem with the discriminatory behavior which may be caused by homophobia''
:This is a diagnosable psychiatric condition. They are ''legally'' handicapped. Persecuting them is discrimination.
*''pyromania may be a psychiatric diagnosis''
:Not all pyromaniacs are [[arson]]ists, just as not all homophobes commit crimes of violence, either. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree that persecuting someone because of a psychiatric condition is discrimination. It is not persecution, however, to disagree with discriminatory behavior, no matter what its motive. In which case i support the creation of an article for homophobia as a psychiatric condition, and a separate article dealing with discrimination against homosexuals in general. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:Surely by creating a page that deals soley with the psychiatric condition and neglects to mention discrimination is like giving homophobes an excuse to discriminate against homosexuals! Why do we always need two articles, one to describe the subject matter, one to slander the idea with all contentious issues on this site. There is no reason these two things cannot be included on the same page. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 14:24, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone nailed the issue. And something should probably be said about the discrimination homophobes have suffered, and the utter insensitivity of thier oppressors in trying to criminalize mentally handicap people. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:28, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:I should point out that while homophobia may be considered a psychiatric diagnosis by some, i personally don't see that as '''any kind of excuse''' on behalf of homophobes for discriminatory behavior against homosexuals. In other words, for me the separation of the articles would be a technical thing, because its true that not all homophobes ''necessarily'' discriminate against homosexuals. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 14:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::RobS, in comparison to the discrimination of homosexuals by homophobes, the discrimination against homphobes is negligible. Name one case of an "anti-homophobic" attack! Orgone, whether '''all''' homophobes discrimnate against homosexuals or not, discrimination happens. Any article that tackles homophobia must talk about the discrimination that homophobia causes. I am not saying we should put a theme through the article saying "homophobia is bad" I'm merely saying that the two are not just related issues, they are indeed the same issue. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:01, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This requires studying sources such as the link provided above; while homosexuality is no loner considered a mental disease (as it once was by the APA), phobias, and specifically homophobia ''still'' is considered as diagnosiable mental condition by the American Psycriatric Asscociation. Now, here is the kicker: most diagnosed homophobes are so-called "latent homosexuals", their fear of homosexuals being personal, i.e. that they may cross the line from latent attraction into an active homosexual lifestyle. In this sense, psyciatrists are ''still'' "treating" homosexuals, not homosexuality as a mental disease, but latent homosexuals fear of acting on their impulses. This is the true, scientific, and medical description of the disease.

:::What we've experienced in recent years, however, is a media and political campaign to shame people with a medical condition. And an investigation will most likely reveal, the term has been misused. The people who allegedly "discriminate", in most cases (1) have not been diagnosed, (2) are probably '''''not''''' textbook homophobes. Effectively what's happened is, a certifiable mental condition, for poltical purposes, has been turned into an attack term. And many of those accused of "homophobia", are nothing of the sort. ''Why'' this has happened, I can present musings and theories, but let's just stick to the facts of the definitions of terms, and the science to support them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes, I do see what youre getting out. Differentiating the clinically diagnosed homophobes from the people who (for want of a better phrase) don't like queers! Homophobe is now in common usage to describe the latter of those two. Perhaps an in depth definition of the psychiatric condition could be put forward on a separate page while we deal with the common usage here. This is, after all, the page that people will search for and if people want to read about the clinical condition they should be directed there. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:34, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Exactly. The problem here is, turning a certifiable mental condition into a politcal attack term may itself be discrimintation against the mentally handicapped. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::The use of the term in itself is not so much a "political attack term" but a method in which to identify a distinct group of people who hold a certain viewpoint. I doubt many self confessed homophobes think of themselves having a clinical problem! People hear the common usage all the time and most people will not be aware of the clinical connotations of the word. Therefore, does it not make sense to portray the common usage on the Homophobia page and put a clear direct to the article describing the clinical condition at the top of the Homophobia page?

::::::On a side note, this all seems a bit pointless considering Ed Poor is apparently about to go to town on this article! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 15:48, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Homophobia

2007-04-25T19:34:13Z

MatteeNeutra:

Talk:Homophobia

2007-04-25T19:01:29Z

MatteeNeutra:

Talk:Homophobia

2007-04-25T18:24:14Z

MatteeNeutra:

Talk:Homophobia

2007-04-24T16:59:37Z

MatteeNeutra:

Talk:Homophobia

2007-04-24T16:14:04Z

MatteeNeutra: