Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Christianity

2008-03-19T18:25:27Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* "the only way to God." */

While it is true that the ''Roman'' Catholic Church might only refer to one rite of Catholicism, the schismatic Orthodox are not Catholic. Also, it is not merely the "original" Christian Church, but the only one, but the "original" semantics are tolerable. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just deleted the descriptors after Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Orthodox Church. Why I did this: The descriptor for Catholic Church used the word ''original''. There would be huge arguments over the use of that word. All of the ancient churches, including the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Non-Chalcedonians lay claim to that word. The Descriptors for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches made them seem like different branches of the same church, which of course, is not true. They are not in communion with one another and hold very different ideas about soteriology and ecclessiology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 05:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Non Denominationals, etc will all argue that there is more than one Christian Church, and that they all don't belong to the Catholic Church and follow the Pope. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: However, this is error on part of the Baptists, Mormons, et al who are not Christians. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 15:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations. Whether or not someone "argues that there are more than one Christian Church" is a non-issue. People can argue whatever they want--that does not mean their points are grounded in truth. The study of the doctrine of the Church, Ecclesiology, is based upon what does Scripture say about who believers are, and what the Body of Christ is. All orthodox (meaning non-heretical)denominiations officially believe there is only one Christian church, one Body of Christ, because that is the Scriptural position. This Body is composed of all those who believe Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again from the dead for them, justifying them before the Father and giving them eternal life.
"Catholic" has two meanings: with a small "c" means universal; "C" refers to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity, ruled by the Pope and Magesterium. Christians in the Nicene creed claim to believe "one holy, catholic and apostolic church", meaning one universal body of believers, founded upon the Apostles' teachings we have in the New Testament. This is not a confession believing in Rome's positions, but in the Biblical position of there being only one body of Christ.

Quite honestly, they are widely accepted as Christian. Just because they don't fit your theology doesn't change that. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons are not widely accepted as Christians. For example, The Orthodox Church (2nd largest Christian church) accepts the baptisms of almost every church (e.g. baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Amish, etc.) but requires Mormons to be baptized when they convert to Orthodoxy.

== Beliefs ==

The first paragraph in this section is incorrect, or incomplete. Not all Christian denominations have the "born again" stance. In some branches of Calvinism, for example, everything is predetermined. No need to be "born again". The Catholic church has also a different interpretation. I guess the orthodox too. What the article describes here is just an anabaptist view, by no means the mainstream view. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

--You are inaccurate. Calvinism does believe in the need for regeneration and being born again. Calvinism is inconsistent, however, and is a good example of what happens when we arrive at a wrong understanding of doctrine, and then try to develop a system of belief around that concept. It would be a natural consequence that if everything is predetermined, there would be no need to be born-again, as you say. Calvinism sees that would be contrary to Scripture, and tries to work around this, but is not able to do so and still arrive at correct doctrine. We should be willing to reject those teachings of our leaders which prove to contradict Holy Scripture. It is inspired by God and inerrant; we are sinful humans,and easily err.

If a denomination does not "have the born-again stance", it is not a Christian denomination, at least on that doctrine. All believers are born-again, regenerated by God at the moment of their belief in Jesus. The sole place of revelation about these issues is in Scripture, and the data must be interpreted correctly, or we arrive at false conclusions, which are un-orthodox and heretical.--[[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] 14:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: You have a very evangelical view of the Christianity. But is not the only one. In Catholic church you indeed become a new person when you are baptized, but this can happen as an infant. No need to be "born-again" at later age. Also, Scripture is in Catholic Church only one of the sources, the Cathechism is also important. The Scripture can not be freely interpreted, but the Vatican has an important say in how to live the faith. You position is very protestant or evangelical, but it is just part of the picture. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

The previous few versions were build on [[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] view on Christianity. These view were by no means inclusive. If bible study leads you to a certin conclusion, then it good for for the individual, but its quite a stretch to claim that others are misled, or mistaken. This entry should include all denominations. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)
:Where does a Christian denomination end and a non-Christian sect feigning Christianity (i.e., a cult) begin? Are Mormons Christians on your view? They stretch a LOT of things, but it is just a matter of degree, right? This is a slippery slope I don't think we should risk traipsing on. If Conservapedia is to live up to its name, it can't be "inclusive" of everyone who calls themselves Christian. The Bible clearly states that the only way to God and Heaven is through belief in the sacrifice of Christ. There will always be those who attempt to take passages out of context (Romans 2:14-16 is a popular victim of this) but that shouldn't get in our way of reporting plain truths. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 18:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Mormons are Christian, if you like it or not. Catholics could also claim that you should all adhere to what the pope says and stop interpreting the scripture as you like. But it doesn't belong here either, because it divisive. The current entry clearly states that different denominations have different views. If you want to put forward the views of your particular denomination, create a new entry on it, put your stuff there, and add a link it to the list of denominations on the Christianity page. If you want to criticize Mormons, create an entry on Mormons, describe them neutrlly, and add a section on criticism on Mormon teachings. But let this page be as inclusive as possible. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)

== "the only way to God." ==

In Romans 2:14-16 we read "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" You have Paul saying that those people who have not heard the law will still be allowed into heaven (and to God) if their life is sufficiently good. One need not only go through Jesus. I will also point to a more controversial translation of Acts 16:17. [http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#yng Young's Literal translation] reads "she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;'" The word [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Act&chapter=16&verse=17&strongs=3598&page= hodos] is literaly translated as 'a way' - '''a''' course of conduct, '''a''' way of thinking, feeling, deciding, '''a''' travelled way, road. To say that the Bible is the only way contradicts what was written by Paul. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Evidence ==

For an article in a Christian Encyclopedia, this article omits very little in the way of evidence for their perspective (other than a book comprising a collection of myths written thousands of years ago by barbarians). Any one have any evidence to share?

--[[User:Moderatedemocrat|Moderatedemocrat]] 11:25, 19 March 2008 (PST)

==Twisting facts==

This article is very one sided with its representation of the statistics given by the Harris poll that is sourced. Having looked through the source it is clear that only the stats that praise Christianity. For example the article states that "99% of all American Christians believe in God". but fails to mention that the source informs us that just 90% of Americans believe in God. All of the stats given are of the percentage of people that believe in God, which is very bias, as it doesnt show the full picture. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 08:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: This article is about Christians and their beliefs. Therefore, only the numbers from the poll on the beliefs of Christians are of interest here. The numbers for non-Christians and average Americans are still interesting, but if you think they are important, add them to the appropriate articles on "Americans" or "Non-Christians". This has nothing to with bias, but just that the article should stick to its subject ''Christianity'', and not wander off in all kinds of directions.

== Are Evangelicals the only Christians? ==

I just noticed that the artcile on Christianity turned into an evangelical sermon. The Nicean creed is the smallest common demoniator, therefore useful to include, but there is more. The artcile has become less enceeclopedic as it used to be, and omits the little fact that, for example, Catholics do not share the evangelical view on salvation and atonement. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:35 (AEST)

== Is America really a Christian Nation? ==

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation? --Moderatedemocrat 10:52, 19 March 2008 (PST)

==Revert==
I think a revert is needed. This article has become less informative more a call to christians to a particularly baptist position. I think it needs to be slimmed down and made less opinion based. I'm quite partial to my last edit. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my changes have made the article's tone more neutral and factual. I still read a distinctly protestant, southern baptist tone, however. It still rambles a bit, but after my changes it still rambles less. There should also be mention of "fringe" denominations like LDS, Jehova's witnesses, and even Unitarian Universalists.--[[User:Adon|Adon]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Anglican ==

Is Anglican Communion part of Protestant Christianity? I think they are not Protestant. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the answer.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==History==

Um... Why doesn't the article include ANYTHING on Christian history?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Etymology==

"Jesus Christ" is not actually Jesus's name. Both "Christ" and "Christianity" come from the Greek word "Christos", meaning "Savior" --Noam Samuel
:See [[Yeshua]] [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:45, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

It may not be his name but it is his title. He is called Jesus Christ for the same reason that George Bush is called President Bush. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:31, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

==Murder==

Why shouldn't the Christianity page get a part devoted to how it is connected to murder? Perhaps one similar to that that is on the page about atheism would be in order. --[[User:Batista|Batista]] 23:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Origins ==

This article is missing an important fact about christianity. It is the only religion entirely based around denying that someones mum and dad ever had sex.
: Actually it isn't. Virgin birth was already known in ancient times. Take as example the Persian god Mithra. He was coincidentally also believed to be born on December 25. And there are a number of other figures that had a virgin mother, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== <s>More info and copyedits -if you have edit rights please add!</s> ''done, with a minor addition'' ==

::Could someone with edit rights add the first part of the following to the intro of the article (at top of page). Underneath is an edited version of the ''See also'' section which shows the denominations in chronological order as they are described in the introduction.

'''Christianity''' is a religion taking its name from [[Jesus Christ]]. Adherents are called Christians. It seems that at first the religion was called "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of Nazareth where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in Antioch in the first century A. D. and its use spread. The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:

* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1 billion baptized members)

*the [[Orthodox Church]] (approx. 300 million baptized members) which holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity itself. The Orthodox Church finally broke from the Roman Catholic Church after the [[Pope]], during the Fourth [[The Crusades|Crusade]], had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered, including both the city itself, and the [[Church of Holy Wisdom]] . Many valuable [[holy relics]], riches, and numerous other items were stolen by Roman Catholics.

* [[Protestant]]ism, the largest Communion being the Anglicans (approx. 77 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]] and its rejection of the [[doctrine]]s and [[malpractice]]s within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of [[indulgences]], the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic [[corruption]], devotion to [[Mary]] and the [[saints]] rather than inward devotion to [[faith]] and [[God]], and rejection of the [[authority]] of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the [[Bible]].

::"See also"

'''Denominations'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but claims to be the only Church established by Jesus Christ)
*[[Orthodox Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but regards itself as the only Church established by Jesus Christ)
*[[Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelicalism]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Pentecostal]]

::Thanks [[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 18:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I am very surprised to see some of the information that has been requested for inclusion -- and then put into the article. I fear we are doing a great disservice.

:''"the [[Pope]], during the Fourth [[The Crusades|Crusade]], had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered"''

The Pope DID NOT do that! The Crusade on the Holy Land was called by the Pope at the request of the Byzantine Empire. The Crusaders took it upon themselves to sack Constantinople when they didn't have the funds to secure passage from Constantinople to the Holy Land. The Pope threatened to Excommunicate them! Also the Great Schism that caused the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church to part company occurred in 1054 A.D. -- 150 years earlier. While the actions of Catholic Crusaders caused a further deterioration, let's not emphasize that over the actual issues that caused the Schism long before the Crusade.

:''"Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]] and its rejection of the [[doctrine]]s and [[malpractice]]s within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of [[indulgences]], the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic [[corruption]], devotion to [[Mary]] and the [[saints]] rather than inward devotion to [[faith]] and [[God]], and rejection of the [[authority]] of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the [[Bible]]."''

Since when do we take a flagrant position of attack on another Christian group? -- Malpractice? Corruption? Catholics don't believe in inward devotion to faith and God? May I suggest the following:

:Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of salvation could not be adequately reconciled as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

Please note I AM NOT CATHOLIC. I AM PROTESTANT. But I have deep respect for the many devout Catholic contributors that we have and what is written is disrespectful to their traditions and history.

Thank you

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:LT, could you copyedit the contentious sections and put up a revision here? Then we can make the alterations. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Here is what I would recommend:

::* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1 billion baptized members, tracing their roots back to [[Saint Peter]] who they believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority of the Christian body of believers.)

::* the [[Orthodox Church]] (approx. 300 million baptized members) which also holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity, but does not believe in the primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] with the Catholic Church in A.D. 1054.

:Thanks for jumping on this right away Fox. You don't waste any time. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:03, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: The middle church history (my term: I referring at the moment to the time of the crusades, etc.) is not my strong point, so I won't dispute your claims of factual inaccuracies.
:: However, I don't agree with you on your comment on "attack[ing]... another Christian group". It's not an attack to simply tell the facts, unless of course you tell them selectively. I would think that the part that was removed about the Catholics was true and correct (if you can tell me that any was factually wrong, then that's a different matter) and relevant, and we shouldn't be hiding or glossing over that.
:: On a different matter, you've introduced an inconsistency, in claiming that the Orthodox church has its origins with the beginnings of Christianity, despite breaking away from Catholicism in 1054, but the Protestant churches, which broke away later, apparently can't trace their origins back to the beginning of Christianity, but only to the point at which they broke away.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::They are somewhat selective, but it is also placement and emphasis. This is a general article on Christianity. Under Luther or Lutheranism if specific details wished to be fleshed out from what Luther felt and what he saw, that would be more appropriate. Those accusations are not universally accepted as being an accurate representation of the position of the Catholic Church, at least as was previously written, and especially among Catholics. There are rebuttals. I doubt we would want this page to go down that path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::The Orthodox patriarchs existed in the major enclaves where Christianity formed from the early roots of Christianity just as the Church at Rome existed. The difference was in perspective. Remember that at that time being a Christian could cause you to lose your head, so the Christian enclaves didn't come together as a unit. It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity legal and called together prominent Christian leaders to figure out Christian theology that you had your first gathering. Notice, he called the council of Nicea to find out Christian thought - he didn't just ask the Pope. Over time the barbarians in the west became Christianized and converted to the western way of thinking, which had developed that the Pope had final authority in matters of Christian doctrine. The East believed all of the patriarchs were equal. Both groups continued to exist and continued to have their individual viewpoints until it came to a head in 1054 and they made their formal pronouncement of a split. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics trace their beginnings to the preaching of the original Disciples. The Orthodox and Catholics actually have much more in common than either group has with the Protestants. If you go to their services, you will find many similarities between them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Okay, I'm happy with that explanation. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== More ==

In the opening paragraph where we mention that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch, perhaps we should give the Bible verse as well (Acts 11:26). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Christianity here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Tweeking ==
I've added the reference to the first mention of Christians. I also changed the number of baptized Catholics to be in line with the article we have in Catholicism. By changing Denominations to Denominations and Branches, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity fit in without extra commentary. The information was unclear as written since Catholicism accepts priestly rites performed by the Orthodox as do the Orthodox with Catholics and, at least in more recent Catholic history, they have referred to Protestants as their "brethren". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: The tweaking looks good, but one I question is the removal of [[Amish]]. I'm not disputing that they are Mennonite (I wouldn't actually know), but the list is a list of other articles on various groups, and as the Amish have their own article, they should be there, I would think (although you could list them on the same line as Mennonite or as a next-level indent under Mennonite, I guess). I had previously wondered why the Episcopalians were listed separately to the Anglicans, but figured that this is why: it's actually a ''see also'' list arranged by group. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::Strictly speaking they are Anabaptists, as are the Mennonites, but they are sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Who's really a Christian?==

I'm not trying to stir up a controversy here, but I realize that not every church in the list is considered to be truly "Christian" by every other church on the list. Can we just agree to let the status quo be, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:04, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not 100% on the Unification Church's doctrine, Ed, so feel free to wade in and correct. As I understand it, the UC denies the deity of Jesus Christ; teaches He was the illegitimate offspring of Zechariah and Mary; that He failed in His earthly mission; that His purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that; that a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying and producing the sinless race; that Rev. Moon is the "third Adam" (paraphrased from ''Unification Church - Christian or Cult?''). Individually, each of those doctrines would render the UC ''non''-Christian.

:As for the LDS, I think this has been thrashed out, unsuccessfully, several times at CP. See [http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html here]. Again, the doctrine renders them ''non''-Christian. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I should probably write an article on [[Unification Church doctrine]], but here's a quick summary based on the points above:
#yes, [[Jesus]]'s purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that
#*The UC teaches that Jesus did not come to die; that he had authority to forgive sins even while he was alive
#yes, a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying
#*but he and his wife alone will not produce the sinless race; the people alive on the earth need to be "grafted" into the [[heavenly lineage]]
#yes, he was the offspring of [[Zechariah]] and [[Mary]]
#*this parallels the story of [[Judah]] and [[Tamar]]; see "[[restoration of the lineage]]"
#yes, Rev. Moon is the "[[third Adam]]"
#*The first [[Adam]] was not supposed to fall; Jesus came as the [[second Adam]]
#*And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”[a] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 (New King James Version)
#*Because he was executed by the Romans before he could complete his mission, he must "come again". In UC doctrine, the [[second coming]] will be fulfilled by another man, "[[third Adam]]"
#No, UC doctrine does not deny the divinity of Jesus, although it does declare that Jesus is a human being; see [[Unification Church doctrine#The Trinity]]

None of these revisions to the ''Unification Church - Christian or Cult?'' paraphrase really changes the essential point, which is that mainstream Christianity has rejected the Unification Church due to these doctrinal differences. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Christianity

2008-03-19T17:52:18Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* Are Evangelicals the only Christians? */

While it is true that the ''Roman'' Catholic Church might only refer to one rite of Catholicism, the schismatic Orthodox are not Catholic. Also, it is not merely the "original" Christian Church, but the only one, but the "original" semantics are tolerable. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I just deleted the descriptors after Catholic Church, Roman Catholic Church, and Orthodox Church. Why I did this: The descriptor for Catholic Church used the word ''original''. There would be huge arguments over the use of that word. All of the ancient churches, including the Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Non-Chalcedonians lay claim to that word. The Descriptors for the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches made them seem like different branches of the same church, which of course, is not true. They are not in communion with one another and hold very different ideas about soteriology and ecclessiology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 05:11, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think that Baptists, Mormons, Protestants, Presbyterians, Jehovah Witnesses, Non Denominationals, etc will all argue that there is more than one Christian Church, and that they all don't belong to the Catholic Church and follow the Pope. --[[User:Orion Blastar|Orion Blastar]] 15:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: However, this is error on part of the Baptists, Mormons, et al who are not Christians. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 15:26, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Christian denominations. Whether or not someone "argues that there are more than one Christian Church" is a non-issue. People can argue whatever they want--that does not mean their points are grounded in truth. The study of the doctrine of the Church, Ecclesiology, is based upon what does Scripture say about who believers are, and what the Body of Christ is. All orthodox (meaning non-heretical)denominiations officially believe there is only one Christian church, one Body of Christ, because that is the Scriptural position. This Body is composed of all those who believe Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose again from the dead for them, justifying them before the Father and giving them eternal life.
"Catholic" has two meanings: with a small "c" means universal; "C" refers to the Roman Catholic branch of Christianity, ruled by the Pope and Magesterium. Christians in the Nicene creed claim to believe "one holy, catholic and apostolic church", meaning one universal body of believers, founded upon the Apostles' teachings we have in the New Testament. This is not a confession believing in Rome's positions, but in the Biblical position of there being only one body of Christ.

Quite honestly, they are widely accepted as Christian. Just because they don't fit your theology doesn't change that. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Mormons are not widely accepted as Christians. For example, The Orthodox Church (2nd largest Christian church) accepts the baptisms of almost every church (e.g. baptists, Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, Amish, etc.) but requires Mormons to be baptized when they convert to Orthodoxy.

== Beliefs ==

The first paragraph in this section is incorrect, or incomplete. Not all Christian denominations have the "born again" stance. In some branches of Calvinism, for example, everything is predetermined. No need to be "born again". The Catholic church has also a different interpretation. I guess the orthodox too. What the article describes here is just an anabaptist view, by no means the mainstream view. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

--You are inaccurate. Calvinism does believe in the need for regeneration and being born again. Calvinism is inconsistent, however, and is a good example of what happens when we arrive at a wrong understanding of doctrine, and then try to develop a system of belief around that concept. It would be a natural consequence that if everything is predetermined, there would be no need to be born-again, as you say. Calvinism sees that would be contrary to Scripture, and tries to work around this, but is not able to do so and still arrive at correct doctrine. We should be willing to reject those teachings of our leaders which prove to contradict Holy Scripture. It is inspired by God and inerrant; we are sinful humans,and easily err.

If a denomination does not "have the born-again stance", it is not a Christian denomination, at least on that doctrine. All believers are born-again, regenerated by God at the moment of their belief in Jesus. The sole place of revelation about these issues is in Scripture, and the data must be interpreted correctly, or we arrive at false conclusions, which are un-orthodox and heretical.--[[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] 14:46, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: You have a very evangelical view of the Christianity. But is not the only one. In Catholic church you indeed become a new person when you are baptized, but this can happen as an infant. No need to be "born-again" at later age. Also, Scripture is in Catholic Church only one of the sources, the Cathechism is also important. The Scripture can not be freely interpreted, but the Vatican has an important say in how to live the faith. You position is very protestant or evangelical, but it is just part of the picture. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)

The previous few versions were build on [[User:PD Popejoy|PD Popejoy]] view on Christianity. These view were by no means inclusive. If bible study leads you to a certin conclusion, then it good for for the individual, but its quite a stretch to claim that others are misled, or mistaken. This entry should include all denominations. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 13 March 2007, 22:10 (AEST)
:Where does a Christian denomination end and a non-Christian sect feigning Christianity (i.e., a cult) begin? Are Mormons Christians on your view? They stretch a LOT of things, but it is just a matter of degree, right? This is a slippery slope I don't think we should risk traipsing on. If Conservapedia is to live up to its name, it can't be "inclusive" of everyone who calls themselves Christian. The Bible clearly states that the only way to God and Heaven is through belief in the sacrifice of Christ. There will always be those who attempt to take passages out of context (Romans 2:14-16 is a popular victim of this) but that shouldn't get in our way of reporting plain truths. [[User:SavedByGrace|SavedByGrace]] 18:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Mormons are Christian, if you like it or not. Catholics could also claim that you should all adhere to what the pope says and stop interpreting the scripture as you like. But it doesn't belong here either, because it divisive. The current entry clearly states that different denominations have different views. If you want to put forward the views of your particular denomination, create a new entry on it, put your stuff there, and add a link it to the list of denominations on the Christianity page. If you want to criticize Mormons, create an entry on Mormons, describe them neutrlly, and add a section on criticism on Mormon teachings. But let this page be as inclusive as possible. -- [[User:Order|Order]] 15 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)

== "the only way to God." ==

In Romans 2:14-16 we read "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel" You have Paul saying that those people who have not heard the law will still be allowed into heaven (and to God) if their life is sufficiently good. One need not only go through Jesus. I will also point to a more controversial translation of Acts 16:17. [http://www.blueletterbible.org/versions.html#yng Young's Literal translation] reads "she having followed Paul and us, was crying, saying, `These men are servants of the Most High God, who declare to us a way of salvation;'" The word [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Act&chapter=16&verse=17&strongs=3598&page= hodos] is literaly translated as 'a way' - '''a''' course of conduct, '''a''' way of thinking, feeling, deciding, '''a''' travelled way, road. To say that the Bible is the only way contradicts what was written by Paul. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Twisting facts==

This article is very one sided with its representation of the statistics given by the Harris poll that is sourced. Having looked through the source it is clear that only the stats that praise Christianity. For example the article states that "99% of all American Christians believe in God". but fails to mention that the source informs us that just 90% of Americans believe in God. All of the stats given are of the percentage of people that believe in God, which is very bias, as it doesnt show the full picture. [[User:Jennisuk|Jennisuk]] 08:05, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: This article is about Christians and their beliefs. Therefore, only the numbers from the poll on the beliefs of Christians are of interest here. The numbers for non-Christians and average Americans are still interesting, but if you think they are important, add them to the appropriate articles on "Americans" or "Non-Christians". This has nothing to with bias, but just that the article should stick to its subject ''Christianity'', and not wander off in all kinds of directions.

== Are Evangelicals the only Christians? ==

I just noticed that the artcile on Christianity turned into an evangelical sermon. The Nicean creed is the smallest common demoniator, therefore useful to include, but there is more. The artcile has become less enceeclopedic as it used to be, and omits the little fact that, for example, Catholics do not share the evangelical view on salvation and atonement. [[User:Order]] 30 March 10:35 (AEST)

== Is America really a Christian Nation? ==

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation? --Moderatedemocrat 10:52, 19 March 2008 (PST)

==Revert==
I think a revert is needed. This article has become less informative more a call to christians to a particularly baptist position. I think it needs to be slimmed down and made less opinion based. I'm quite partial to my last edit. --[[User:Adon|Adon]] 03:39, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I think my changes have made the article's tone more neutral and factual. I still read a distinctly protestant, southern baptist tone, however. It still rambles a bit, but after my changes it still rambles less. There should also be mention of "fringe" denominations like LDS, Jehova's witnesses, and even Unitarian Universalists.--[[User:Adon|Adon]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Anglican ==

Is Anglican Communion part of Protestant Christianity? I think they are not Protestant. Am I wrong?

Thanks for the answer.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 14:41, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

==History==

Um... Why doesn't the article include ANYTHING on Christian history?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

==Etymology==

"Jesus Christ" is not actually Jesus's name. Both "Christ" and "Christianity" come from the Greek word "Christos", meaning "Savior" --Noam Samuel
:See [[Yeshua]] [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 07:45, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

It may not be his name but it is his title. He is called Jesus Christ for the same reason that George Bush is called President Bush. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 08:31, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

==Murder==

Why shouldn't the Christianity page get a part devoted to how it is connected to murder? Perhaps one similar to that that is on the page about atheism would be in order. --[[User:Batista|Batista]] 23:22, 7 November 2007 (EST)

== Origins ==

This article is missing an important fact about christianity. It is the only religion entirely based around denying that someones mum and dad ever had sex.
: Actually it isn't. Virgin birth was already known in ancient times. Take as example the Persian god Mithra. He was coincidentally also believed to be born on December 25. And there are a number of other figures that had a virgin mother, too. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:13, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== <s>More info and copyedits -if you have edit rights please add!</s> ''done, with a minor addition'' ==

::Could someone with edit rights add the first part of the following to the intro of the article (at top of page). Underneath is an edited version of the ''See also'' section which shows the denominations in chronological order as they are described in the introduction.

'''Christianity''' is a religion taking its name from [[Jesus Christ]]. Adherents are called Christians. It seems that at first the religion was called "The Way" and the adherents were called Nazarenes (after the city of Nazareth where Jesus lived). The name Christian arose in Antioch in the first century A. D. and its use spread. The three largest self-governing bodies of Christians are:

* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1 billion baptized members)

*the [[Orthodox Church]] (approx. 300 million baptized members) which holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity itself. The Orthodox Church finally broke from the Roman Catholic Church after the [[Pope]], during the Fourth [[The Crusades|Crusade]], had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered, including both the city itself, and the [[Church of Holy Wisdom]] . Many valuable [[holy relics]], riches, and numerous other items were stolen by Roman Catholics.

* [[Protestant]]ism, the largest Communion being the Anglicans (approx. 77 million baptized members). Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]] and its rejection of the [[doctrine]]s and [[malpractice]]s within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of [[indulgences]], the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic [[corruption]], devotion to [[Mary]] and the [[saints]] rather than inward devotion to [[faith]] and [[God]], and rejection of the [[authority]] of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the [[Bible]].

::"See also"

'''Denominations'''
*[[Roman Catholic Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but claims to be the only Church established by Jesus Christ)
*[[Orthodox Church]] (Does not regard itself as a denomination, but regards itself as the only Church established by Jesus Christ)
*[[Protestant]]
**[[Amish]]
**[[Baptist]]
**[[Church of England]] or ''Anglican Church''
**[[Episcopal Church in the United States of America]] (or ''Episcopal Church'' or ''Episcopalians'') (Non-UK branch of the Anglican Church)
**[[Evangelicalism]]
**[[Fundamentalism]]
**[[Lutheran]]
**[[Methodist]]
**[[Presbyterian]]
**[[Liberal Christianity]]
**[[Mennonite]]
**[[Pentecostal]]

::Thanks [[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 18:41, 16 January 2008 (EST)

I am very surprised to see some of the information that has been requested for inclusion -- and then put into the article. I fear we are doing a great disservice.

:''"the [[Pope]], during the Fourth [[The Crusades|Crusade]], had Constantinople captured, sacked and plundered"''

The Pope DID NOT do that! The Crusade on the Holy Land was called by the Pope at the request of the Byzantine Empire. The Crusaders took it upon themselves to sack Constantinople when they didn't have the funds to secure passage from Constantinople to the Holy Land. The Pope threatened to Excommunicate them! Also the Great Schism that caused the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church to part company occurred in 1054 A.D. -- 150 years earlier. While the actions of Catholic Crusaders caused a further deterioration, let's not emphasize that over the actual issues that caused the Schism long before the Crusade.

:''"Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]] and its rejection of the [[doctrine]]s and [[malpractice]]s within the Roman Catholic Church. Those included the teaching and sale of [[indulgences]], the buying and selling of church positions and the systemic [[corruption]], devotion to [[Mary]] and the [[saints]] rather than inward devotion to [[faith]] and [[God]], and rejection of the [[authority]] of the Pope on the basis that the only true authority is the [[Bible]]."''

Since when do we take a flagrant position of attack on another Christian group? -- Malpractice? Corruption? Catholics don't believe in inward devotion to faith and God? May I suggest the following:

:Protestantism has its origins in the [[European]] [[Reformation]]. It first broke away from the Roman Catholic Church under [[Martin Luther]] when differences over the nature of faith and works in the role of salvation could not be adequately reconciled as well as other practices that Luther saw in the Catholic Church at that time that he did not agree with. Other preachers and movements then followed Luther's example and also left the Catholic fold.

Please note I AM NOT CATHOLIC. I AM PROTESTANT. But I have deep respect for the many devout Catholic contributors that we have and what is written is disrespectful to their traditions and history.

Thank you

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 17 January 2008 (EST)
:LT, could you copyedit the contentious sections and put up a revision here? Then we can make the alterations. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:31, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:Here is what I would recommend:

::* the [[Roman Catholic Church]] (approx. 1 billion baptized members, tracing their roots back to [[Saint Peter]] who they believed established the Church and the succession of the [[Pope]]s as the spiritual authority of the Christian body of believers.)

::* the [[Orthodox Church]] (approx. 300 million baptized members) which also holds ancient theological roots stretching back to the beginnings of Christianity, but does not believe in the primacy of the Pope. Different theological perspectives led to the [[Great Schism]] with the Catholic Church in A.D. 1054.

:Thanks for jumping on this right away Fox. You don't waste any time. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:03, 17 January 2008 (EST)

:: The middle church history (my term: I referring at the moment to the time of the crusades, etc.) is not my strong point, so I won't dispute your claims of factual inaccuracies.
:: However, I don't agree with you on your comment on "attack[ing]... another Christian group". It's not an attack to simply tell the facts, unless of course you tell them selectively. I would think that the part that was removed about the Catholics was true and correct (if you can tell me that any was factually wrong, then that's a different matter) and relevant, and we shouldn't be hiding or glossing over that.
:: On a different matter, you've introduced an inconsistency, in claiming that the Orthodox church has its origins with the beginnings of Christianity, despite breaking away from Catholicism in 1054, but the Protestant churches, which broke away later, apparently can't trace their origins back to the beginning of Christianity, but only to the point at which they broke away.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:23, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::They are somewhat selective, but it is also placement and emphasis. This is a general article on Christianity. Under Luther or Lutheranism if specific details wished to be fleshed out from what Luther felt and what he saw, that would be more appropriate. Those accusations are not universally accepted as being an accurate representation of the position of the Catholic Church, at least as was previously written, and especially among Catholics. There are rebuttals. I doubt we would want this page to go down that path. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:::The Orthodox patriarchs existed in the major enclaves where Christianity formed from the early roots of Christianity just as the Church at Rome existed. The difference was in perspective. Remember that at that time being a Christian could cause you to lose your head, so the Christian enclaves didn't come together as a unit. It wasn't until Constantine made Christianity legal and called together prominent Christian leaders to figure out Christian theology that you had your first gathering. Notice, he called the council of Nicea to find out Christian thought - he didn't just ask the Pope. Over time the barbarians in the west became Christianized and converted to the western way of thinking, which had developed that the Pope had final authority in matters of Christian doctrine. The East believed all of the patriarchs were equal. Both groups continued to exist and continued to have their individual viewpoints until it came to a head in 1054 and they made their formal pronouncement of a split. Both the Orthodox and the Catholics trace their beginnings to the preaching of the original Disciples. The Orthodox and Catholics actually have much more in common than either group has with the Protestants. If you go to their services, you will find many similarities between them. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:44, 18 January 2008 (EST)
:::: Okay, I'm happy with that explanation. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:52, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== More ==

In the opening paragraph where we mention that the believers were first called Christians in Antioch, perhaps we should give the Bible verse as well (Acts 11:26). [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Christianity here]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Tweeking ==
I've added the reference to the first mention of Christians. I also changed the number of baptized Catholics to be in line with the article we have in Catholicism. By changing Denominations to Denominations and Branches, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity fit in without extra commentary. The information was unclear as written since Catholicism accepts priestly rites performed by the Orthodox as do the Orthodox with Catholics and, at least in more recent Catholic history, they have referred to Protestants as their "brethren". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)
: The tweaking looks good, but one I question is the removal of [[Amish]]. I'm not disputing that they are Mennonite (I wouldn't actually know), but the list is a list of other articles on various groups, and as the Amish have their own article, they should be there, I would think (although you could list them on the same line as Mennonite or as a next-level indent under Mennonite, I guess). I had previously wondered why the Episcopalians were listed separately to the Anglicans, but figured that this is why: it's actually a ''see also'' list arranged by group. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)
::Strictly speaking they are Anabaptists, as are the Mennonites, but they are sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:28, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Who's really a Christian?==

I'm not trying to stir up a controversy here, but I realize that not every church in the list is considered to be truly "Christian" by every other church on the list. Can we just agree to let the status quo be, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 21:04, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not 100% on the Unification Church's doctrine, Ed, so feel free to wade in and correct. As I understand it, the UC denies the deity of Jesus Christ; teaches He was the illegitimate offspring of Zechariah and Mary; that He failed in His earthly mission; that His purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that; that a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying and producing the sinless race; that Rev. Moon is the "third Adam" (paraphrased from ''Unification Church - Christian or Cult?''). Individually, each of those doctrines would render the UC ''non''-Christian.

:As for the LDS, I think this has been thrashed out, unsuccessfully, several times at CP. See [http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html here]. Again, the doctrine renders them ''non''-Christian. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 08:01, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

I should probably write an article on [[Unification Church doctrine]], but here's a quick summary based on the points above:
#yes, [[Jesus]]'s purpose was to marry and to produce perfect children but He was killed before He could fulfill that
#*The UC teaches that Jesus did not come to die; that he had authority to forgive sins even while he was alive
#yes, a "third Adam" must come to fulfill G-d's plan for physical salvation by marrying
#*but he and his wife alone will not produce the sinless race; the people alive on the earth need to be "grafted" into the [[heavenly lineage]]
#yes, he was the offspring of [[Zechariah]] and [[Mary]]
#*this parallels the story of [[Judah]] and [[Tamar]]; see "[[restoration of the lineage]]"
#yes, Rev. Moon is the "[[third Adam]]"
#*The first [[Adam]] was not supposed to fall; Jesus came as the [[second Adam]]
#*And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.”[a] The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15:45 (New King James Version)
#*Because he was executed by the Romans before he could complete his mission, he must "come again". In UC doctrine, the [[second coming]] will be fulfilled by another man, "[[third Adam]]"
#No, UC doctrine does not deny the divinity of Jesus, although it does declare that Jesus is a human being; see [[Unification Church doctrine#The Trinity]]

None of these revisions to the ''Unification Church - Christian or Cult?'' paraphrase really changes the essential point, which is that mainstream Christianity has rejected the Unification Church due to these doctrinal differences. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:52, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United States of America

2008-03-17T17:03:08Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* Is America really a Christian nation? */

{{protect|TK}}

==Freedom of religion==
The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --[[User:John|John]] 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Is America really a Christian nation?==

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation?
[[--Moderatedemocrat]] 10:01, 17 March 2007 (PST)

==Spreading democracy==
The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up

=="greatest"==
The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Changed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==PGA==
I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Jefferson, 1804-1806. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Parties ==

The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("[[divided government]]"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on [[Political Parties in the U.S.]] would be a good thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Background ==

After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:::By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, ''some'' people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::::I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.[[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==
===Reversion of this section by RobS?===

I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gender&diff=prev&oldid=144719] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=145528&oldid=144493] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,
:*"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases '''Dominionist''', argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.
:confirms those suspicions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:::This paragraph,
::::"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.
:::appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Evenning RobS==

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.

However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.

I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.

Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?

Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.

I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
[[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)

== Earlier history ==
History before 1600 totally missing. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:History of land still totally missing. Or is this a land without any history?! Write someting about it or open this article for others to write... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== Hello RobS & CPAdmin==
Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)

== Map? ==

It seems to be rather missing? [[User:Human|subHuman]] 18:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Map? I don't even see it in the page history. Explain. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::A map , you know, a diagram showing where the United States is. The 48 + 2, + territories, perhaps? If I had a good one in my files I would have uploaded it... This comment needed ''explaining''?[[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, because your post infered, to me, that there was one at some point, and was now "missing". You were not clear, and I was asking what you meant. Then you respond with your usual nastiness. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry if my original style was opaque. Let me rephrase: "Where is a map of the country?"!!! I think you infer nastiness where constructivism is intended. After all, ''wouldn't this article be better'' with a map? And as I said, I would have added it, if I had a decent PD one on hand. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, suggest a place to squeeze the map into! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Specifics about each state
I think we need to have specifics info about each of the 50 states or at least links to them.

:*See below about a list of States. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello ==

I agree, perhaps I am confused, but shouldn't, in the first paragraph, where it says "50 states" that phrase actually link to an actual list of the states? [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 12:26, May 28, 2007 (EDT)

*It might become confusing having an article on the fifty United States and the the United States of America...but I would love to see someone create a side-box or some kind of one, listing the States! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Greatest economy==

The economy of US is acutally behind that of the EU, so this point in the article is false.
::The EU is not a country. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

::The is a list of [[per capita income]], which provides the information that the USA comes in forth, just behind Denmark and Qater and just ahead of Sweden. However, the US is larger than any of the richest states and has the larger economy when population is not taken in account - perhaps this could be specified?[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]].

*Another odd, skewed factoid. Consider this, a real measure of the economy; 2nd Quarter, 2007, the real dollar growth of the U.S. GNP, about 3%, was greater than the total economy of China. I wonder where that leaves Qater and Denmark? Muahahaha! Per capita figures are bogus for many reasons, not the least of which is the infrastructure that people in the United States enjoy, and take for granted, that just isn't in place in those other countries. One also has to consider tax rates, etc. Where are not equal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::You are correct in China, the economy is seen as important as it is emerging, but considering the number of people, it is still very small. That is why China is not on teh Per Capita list.

:::Denmark has a very high quality of life, I am not sure what you mean by infastructure, but it would certainly be as high as the US, if not higher. After all, free higher educaiton, free healthcare, slight higher life expectancy (though both do poorly there, obesity being the problem in the USA I assume and there is too much smoking in Denmark).[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 08:14, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

However, the country is much smaller so the total size of the economy is smaller.

== Republic vs. Democracy ==

The info box lists the U.S. government as a "Federal Constitutional Republic/Representative Democracy".

According to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. These are two very different forms of government and our Founding Fathers specifically stated their distate of a Democracy. Saying "Representative Democracy" is actually a contrast in terms. In effect, it really is an odd way of saying "Republic".

I would suggest that this be changed merely to "Constitutional Republic" or just leave it as "Federal Constitutional Republic" and leave off the "Representative Democracy" since the latter is convoluted and inaccurate. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:30, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps a too picky a point, Scorpio, as common useage says Representative Democracy quite often, but your logic is sound, and I have removed that bit as you suggested. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, this is why I have become one of your biggest fans. :) Clarity of mind is such a rarity that when I spot it, I can't help but be thankful I have encountered it. Thanks for taking care of this issue. Also, please let me know if I can work with you on any articles where you would like my input. Always anxious to help out a friend. Best Regards. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling/Grammatical Mistakes ==

"Alaska in located in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean."

Should be "is located", but since the article is locked...
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:19, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for pointing out the mistake! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== Summary Table ==

The figures in the summary table is uncited - where did they come from? Is it possible to change them to cited facts? (e.g. GDP per capita being $44,000 (2006 estimate), from CIA World Factbook.)

The numbers from the World Factbook is not that different from ones given in the table, but at least it's a citation (and I think it's reliable... or is it considered "liberal deceit" in CP?) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Wilst humor is often appreciated, continual, never-ending snipes are not, ATang. Rest your neck. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not intended as humour - I don't know what the "conservative" stance on CIA World Factbook is. I know people who trust it, and others who don't. Many instances I look at something as fact and it's considered liberal bias here. I'm just trying to improve an article. There's no need to get aggressive. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*That wasn't agressive, lol. You must be very sheltered! I think any government source in the U.S. is okay, but I don't take most any source, on its own, to be the end all and be all. I have found entries in the Fact Book that are severely dated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:22, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: I was just wondering where the 2007 estimates came from. The Factbook has 2006 estimates, so it's not too dated. Whatever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== English as official language? ==

English has never been codified as an official language of the United States. Many individual states have taken this action, some with the addition of additional minority languages. The page should be changed to reflect this. [[User:Prosody|Prosody]] 18:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:You are correct. its not an official language yet. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::<s>He is not correct. The article doesn't call English the ''[[official language]]''. There is a taxobox entry tagged ''language''. This is merely informative, in case someone didn't know what language most Americans speak.</s>

::We need an article on the "English as an official language" controversy. It relates to immigration and to the [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] conflict. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:59, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Good catch, Prosody! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:42, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Meanwhile the Wiki link is not valid - It should be English language not English (unofficial language. [[User:ViyotrNielson|ViyotrNielson]] 18:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United States of America

2008-03-17T17:02:54Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* Is America really a Christian nation? */

{{protect|TK}}

==Freedom of religion==
The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --[[User:John|John]] 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Is America really a Christian nation?==

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A pretty common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation?
[[--Moderatedemocrat]] 10:01, 17 March 2007 (PST)

==Spreading democracy==
The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up

=="greatest"==
The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Changed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==PGA==
I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Jefferson, 1804-1806. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Parties ==

The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("[[divided government]]"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on [[Political Parties in the U.S.]] would be a good thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Background ==

After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:::By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, ''some'' people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::::I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.[[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==
===Reversion of this section by RobS?===

I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gender&diff=prev&oldid=144719] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=145528&oldid=144493] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,
:*"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases '''Dominionist''', argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.
:confirms those suspicions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:::This paragraph,
::::"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.
:::appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Evenning RobS==

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.

However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.

I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.

Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?

Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.

I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
[[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)

== Earlier history ==
History before 1600 totally missing. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:History of land still totally missing. Or is this a land without any history?! Write someting about it or open this article for others to write... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== Hello RobS & CPAdmin==
Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)

== Map? ==

It seems to be rather missing? [[User:Human|subHuman]] 18:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Map? I don't even see it in the page history. Explain. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::A map , you know, a diagram showing where the United States is. The 48 + 2, + territories, perhaps? If I had a good one in my files I would have uploaded it... This comment needed ''explaining''?[[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, because your post infered, to me, that there was one at some point, and was now "missing". You were not clear, and I was asking what you meant. Then you respond with your usual nastiness. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry if my original style was opaque. Let me rephrase: "Where is a map of the country?"!!! I think you infer nastiness where constructivism is intended. After all, ''wouldn't this article be better'' with a map? And as I said, I would have added it, if I had a decent PD one on hand. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, suggest a place to squeeze the map into! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Specifics about each state
I think we need to have specifics info about each of the 50 states or at least links to them.

:*See below about a list of States. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello ==

I agree, perhaps I am confused, but shouldn't, in the first paragraph, where it says "50 states" that phrase actually link to an actual list of the states? [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 12:26, May 28, 2007 (EDT)

*It might become confusing having an article on the fifty United States and the the United States of America...but I would love to see someone create a side-box or some kind of one, listing the States! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Greatest economy==

The economy of US is acutally behind that of the EU, so this point in the article is false.
::The EU is not a country. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

::The is a list of [[per capita income]], which provides the information that the USA comes in forth, just behind Denmark and Qater and just ahead of Sweden. However, the US is larger than any of the richest states and has the larger economy when population is not taken in account - perhaps this could be specified?[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]].

*Another odd, skewed factoid. Consider this, a real measure of the economy; 2nd Quarter, 2007, the real dollar growth of the U.S. GNP, about 3%, was greater than the total economy of China. I wonder where that leaves Qater and Denmark? Muahahaha! Per capita figures are bogus for many reasons, not the least of which is the infrastructure that people in the United States enjoy, and take for granted, that just isn't in place in those other countries. One also has to consider tax rates, etc. Where are not equal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::You are correct in China, the economy is seen as important as it is emerging, but considering the number of people, it is still very small. That is why China is not on teh Per Capita list.

:::Denmark has a very high quality of life, I am not sure what you mean by infastructure, but it would certainly be as high as the US, if not higher. After all, free higher educaiton, free healthcare, slight higher life expectancy (though both do poorly there, obesity being the problem in the USA I assume and there is too much smoking in Denmark).[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 08:14, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

However, the country is much smaller so the total size of the economy is smaller.

== Republic vs. Democracy ==

The info box lists the U.S. government as a "Federal Constitutional Republic/Representative Democracy".

According to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. These are two very different forms of government and our Founding Fathers specifically stated their distate of a Democracy. Saying "Representative Democracy" is actually a contrast in terms. In effect, it really is an odd way of saying "Republic".

I would suggest that this be changed merely to "Constitutional Republic" or just leave it as "Federal Constitutional Republic" and leave off the "Representative Democracy" since the latter is convoluted and inaccurate. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:30, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps a too picky a point, Scorpio, as common useage says Representative Democracy quite often, but your logic is sound, and I have removed that bit as you suggested. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, this is why I have become one of your biggest fans. :) Clarity of mind is such a rarity that when I spot it, I can't help but be thankful I have encountered it. Thanks for taking care of this issue. Also, please let me know if I can work with you on any articles where you would like my input. Always anxious to help out a friend. Best Regards. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling/Grammatical Mistakes ==

"Alaska in located in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean."

Should be "is located", but since the article is locked...
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:19, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for pointing out the mistake! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== Summary Table ==

The figures in the summary table is uncited - where did they come from? Is it possible to change them to cited facts? (e.g. GDP per capita being $44,000 (2006 estimate), from CIA World Factbook.)

The numbers from the World Factbook is not that different from ones given in the table, but at least it's a citation (and I think it's reliable... or is it considered "liberal deceit" in CP?) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Wilst humor is often appreciated, continual, never-ending snipes are not, ATang. Rest your neck. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not intended as humour - I don't know what the "conservative" stance on CIA World Factbook is. I know people who trust it, and others who don't. Many instances I look at something as fact and it's considered liberal bias here. I'm just trying to improve an article. There's no need to get aggressive. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*That wasn't agressive, lol. You must be very sheltered! I think any government source in the U.S. is okay, but I don't take most any source, on its own, to be the end all and be all. I have found entries in the Fact Book that are severely dated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:22, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: I was just wondering where the 2007 estimates came from. The Factbook has 2006 estimates, so it's not too dated. Whatever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== English as official language? ==

English has never been codified as an official language of the United States. Many individual states have taken this action, some with the addition of additional minority languages. The page should be changed to reflect this. [[User:Prosody|Prosody]] 18:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:You are correct. its not an official language yet. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::<s>He is not correct. The article doesn't call English the ''[[official language]]''. There is a taxobox entry tagged ''language''. This is merely informative, in case someone didn't know what language most Americans speak.</s>

::We need an article on the "English as an official language" controversy. It relates to immigration and to the [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] conflict. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:59, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Good catch, Prosody! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:42, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Meanwhile the Wiki link is not valid - It should be English language not English (unofficial language. [[User:ViyotrNielson|ViyotrNielson]] 18:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United States of America

2008-03-17T17:01:45Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* Is America really a Christian nation? */

{{protect|TK}}

==Freedom of religion==
The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --[[User:John|John]] 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Is America really a Christian nation?==

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A pretty common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation?
[[--Moderatedemocrat]] 10:01, 17 March 2007 (PST)

==Spreading democracy==
The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up

=="greatest"==
The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Changed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==PGA==
I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Jefferson, 1804-1806. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Parties ==

The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("[[divided government]]"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on [[Political Parties in the U.S.]] would be a good thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Background ==

After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:::By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, ''some'' people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::::I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.[[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==
===Reversion of this section by RobS?===

I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gender&diff=prev&oldid=144719] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=145528&oldid=144493] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,
:*"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases '''Dominionist''', argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.
:confirms those suspicions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:::This paragraph,
::::"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.
:::appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Evenning RobS==

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.

However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.

I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.

Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?

Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.

I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
[[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)

== Earlier history ==
History before 1600 totally missing. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:History of land still totally missing. Or is this a land without any history?! Write someting about it or open this article for others to write... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== Hello RobS & CPAdmin==
Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)

== Map? ==

It seems to be rather missing? [[User:Human|subHuman]] 18:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Map? I don't even see it in the page history. Explain. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::A map , you know, a diagram showing where the United States is. The 48 + 2, + territories, perhaps? If I had a good one in my files I would have uploaded it... This comment needed ''explaining''?[[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, because your post infered, to me, that there was one at some point, and was now "missing". You were not clear, and I was asking what you meant. Then you respond with your usual nastiness. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry if my original style was opaque. Let me rephrase: "Where is a map of the country?"!!! I think you infer nastiness where constructivism is intended. After all, ''wouldn't this article be better'' with a map? And as I said, I would have added it, if I had a decent PD one on hand. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, suggest a place to squeeze the map into! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Specifics about each state
I think we need to have specifics info about each of the 50 states or at least links to them.

:*See below about a list of States. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello ==

I agree, perhaps I am confused, but shouldn't, in the first paragraph, where it says "50 states" that phrase actually link to an actual list of the states? [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 12:26, May 28, 2007 (EDT)

*It might become confusing having an article on the fifty United States and the the United States of America...but I would love to see someone create a side-box or some kind of one, listing the States! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Greatest economy==

The economy of US is acutally behind that of the EU, so this point in the article is false.
::The EU is not a country. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

::The is a list of [[per capita income]], which provides the information that the USA comes in forth, just behind Denmark and Qater and just ahead of Sweden. However, the US is larger than any of the richest states and has the larger economy when population is not taken in account - perhaps this could be specified?[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]].

*Another odd, skewed factoid. Consider this, a real measure of the economy; 2nd Quarter, 2007, the real dollar growth of the U.S. GNP, about 3%, was greater than the total economy of China. I wonder where that leaves Qater and Denmark? Muahahaha! Per capita figures are bogus for many reasons, not the least of which is the infrastructure that people in the United States enjoy, and take for granted, that just isn't in place in those other countries. One also has to consider tax rates, etc. Where are not equal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::You are correct in China, the economy is seen as important as it is emerging, but considering the number of people, it is still very small. That is why China is not on teh Per Capita list.

:::Denmark has a very high quality of life, I am not sure what you mean by infastructure, but it would certainly be as high as the US, if not higher. After all, free higher educaiton, free healthcare, slight higher life expectancy (though both do poorly there, obesity being the problem in the USA I assume and there is too much smoking in Denmark).[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 08:14, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

However, the country is much smaller so the total size of the economy is smaller.

== Republic vs. Democracy ==

The info box lists the U.S. government as a "Federal Constitutional Republic/Representative Democracy".

According to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. These are two very different forms of government and our Founding Fathers specifically stated their distate of a Democracy. Saying "Representative Democracy" is actually a contrast in terms. In effect, it really is an odd way of saying "Republic".

I would suggest that this be changed merely to "Constitutional Republic" or just leave it as "Federal Constitutional Republic" and leave off the "Representative Democracy" since the latter is convoluted and inaccurate. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:30, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps a too picky a point, Scorpio, as common useage says Representative Democracy quite often, but your logic is sound, and I have removed that bit as you suggested. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, this is why I have become one of your biggest fans. :) Clarity of mind is such a rarity that when I spot it, I can't help but be thankful I have encountered it. Thanks for taking care of this issue. Also, please let me know if I can work with you on any articles where you would like my input. Always anxious to help out a friend. Best Regards. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling/Grammatical Mistakes ==

"Alaska in located in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean."

Should be "is located", but since the article is locked...
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:19, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for pointing out the mistake! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== Summary Table ==

The figures in the summary table is uncited - where did they come from? Is it possible to change them to cited facts? (e.g. GDP per capita being $44,000 (2006 estimate), from CIA World Factbook.)

The numbers from the World Factbook is not that different from ones given in the table, but at least it's a citation (and I think it's reliable... or is it considered "liberal deceit" in CP?) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Wilst humor is often appreciated, continual, never-ending snipes are not, ATang. Rest your neck. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not intended as humour - I don't know what the "conservative" stance on CIA World Factbook is. I know people who trust it, and others who don't. Many instances I look at something as fact and it's considered liberal bias here. I'm just trying to improve an article. There's no need to get aggressive. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*That wasn't agressive, lol. You must be very sheltered! I think any government source in the U.S. is okay, but I don't take most any source, on its own, to be the end all and be all. I have found entries in the Fact Book that are severely dated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:22, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: I was just wondering where the 2007 estimates came from. The Factbook has 2006 estimates, so it's not too dated. Whatever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== English as official language? ==

English has never been codified as an official language of the United States. Many individual states have taken this action, some with the addition of additional minority languages. The page should be changed to reflect this. [[User:Prosody|Prosody]] 18:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:You are correct. its not an official language yet. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::<s>He is not correct. The article doesn't call English the ''[[official language]]''. There is a taxobox entry tagged ''language''. This is merely informative, in case someone didn't know what language most Americans speak.</s>

::We need an article on the "English as an official language" controversy. It relates to immigration and to the [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] conflict. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:59, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Good catch, Prosody! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:42, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Meanwhile the Wiki link is not valid - It should be English language not English (unofficial language. [[User:ViyotrNielson|ViyotrNielson]] 18:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United States of America

2008-03-17T17:01:21Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* Is America really a Christian nation? */

{{protect|TK}}

==Freedom of religion==
The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --[[User:John|John]] 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Is America really a Christian nation?==

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A pretty common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation?
[[User:Moderatedemocrat]] 10:01, 17 March 2007 (PST)

==Spreading democracy==
The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up

=="greatest"==
The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Changed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==PGA==
I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Jefferson, 1804-1806. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Parties ==

The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("[[divided government]]"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on [[Political Parties in the U.S.]] would be a good thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Background ==

After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:::By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, ''some'' people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::::I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.[[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==
===Reversion of this section by RobS?===

I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gender&diff=prev&oldid=144719] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=145528&oldid=144493] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,
:*"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases '''Dominionist''', argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.
:confirms those suspicions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:::This paragraph,
::::"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.
:::appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Evenning RobS==

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.

However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.

I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.

Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?

Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.

I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
[[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)

== Earlier history ==
History before 1600 totally missing. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:History of land still totally missing. Or is this a land without any history?! Write someting about it or open this article for others to write... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== Hello RobS & CPAdmin==
Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)

== Map? ==

It seems to be rather missing? [[User:Human|subHuman]] 18:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Map? I don't even see it in the page history. Explain. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::A map , you know, a diagram showing where the United States is. The 48 + 2, + territories, perhaps? If I had a good one in my files I would have uploaded it... This comment needed ''explaining''?[[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, because your post infered, to me, that there was one at some point, and was now "missing". You were not clear, and I was asking what you meant. Then you respond with your usual nastiness. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry if my original style was opaque. Let me rephrase: "Where is a map of the country?"!!! I think you infer nastiness where constructivism is intended. After all, ''wouldn't this article be better'' with a map? And as I said, I would have added it, if I had a decent PD one on hand. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, suggest a place to squeeze the map into! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Specifics about each state
I think we need to have specifics info about each of the 50 states or at least links to them.

:*See below about a list of States. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello ==

I agree, perhaps I am confused, but shouldn't, in the first paragraph, where it says "50 states" that phrase actually link to an actual list of the states? [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 12:26, May 28, 2007 (EDT)

*It might become confusing having an article on the fifty United States and the the United States of America...but I would love to see someone create a side-box or some kind of one, listing the States! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Greatest economy==

The economy of US is acutally behind that of the EU, so this point in the article is false.
::The EU is not a country. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

::The is a list of [[per capita income]], which provides the information that the USA comes in forth, just behind Denmark and Qater and just ahead of Sweden. However, the US is larger than any of the richest states and has the larger economy when population is not taken in account - perhaps this could be specified?[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]].

*Another odd, skewed factoid. Consider this, a real measure of the economy; 2nd Quarter, 2007, the real dollar growth of the U.S. GNP, about 3%, was greater than the total economy of China. I wonder where that leaves Qater and Denmark? Muahahaha! Per capita figures are bogus for many reasons, not the least of which is the infrastructure that people in the United States enjoy, and take for granted, that just isn't in place in those other countries. One also has to consider tax rates, etc. Where are not equal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::You are correct in China, the economy is seen as important as it is emerging, but considering the number of people, it is still very small. That is why China is not on teh Per Capita list.

:::Denmark has a very high quality of life, I am not sure what you mean by infastructure, but it would certainly be as high as the US, if not higher. After all, free higher educaiton, free healthcare, slight higher life expectancy (though both do poorly there, obesity being the problem in the USA I assume and there is too much smoking in Denmark).[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 08:14, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

However, the country is much smaller so the total size of the economy is smaller.

== Republic vs. Democracy ==

The info box lists the U.S. government as a "Federal Constitutional Republic/Representative Democracy".

According to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. These are two very different forms of government and our Founding Fathers specifically stated their distate of a Democracy. Saying "Representative Democracy" is actually a contrast in terms. In effect, it really is an odd way of saying "Republic".

I would suggest that this be changed merely to "Constitutional Republic" or just leave it as "Federal Constitutional Republic" and leave off the "Representative Democracy" since the latter is convoluted and inaccurate. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:30, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps a too picky a point, Scorpio, as common useage says Representative Democracy quite often, but your logic is sound, and I have removed that bit as you suggested. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, this is why I have become one of your biggest fans. :) Clarity of mind is such a rarity that when I spot it, I can't help but be thankful I have encountered it. Thanks for taking care of this issue. Also, please let me know if I can work with you on any articles where you would like my input. Always anxious to help out a friend. Best Regards. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling/Grammatical Mistakes ==

"Alaska in located in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean."

Should be "is located", but since the article is locked...
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:19, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for pointing out the mistake! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== Summary Table ==

The figures in the summary table is uncited - where did they come from? Is it possible to change them to cited facts? (e.g. GDP per capita being $44,000 (2006 estimate), from CIA World Factbook.)

The numbers from the World Factbook is not that different from ones given in the table, but at least it's a citation (and I think it's reliable... or is it considered "liberal deceit" in CP?) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Wilst humor is often appreciated, continual, never-ending snipes are not, ATang. Rest your neck. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not intended as humour - I don't know what the "conservative" stance on CIA World Factbook is. I know people who trust it, and others who don't. Many instances I look at something as fact and it's considered liberal bias here. I'm just trying to improve an article. There's no need to get aggressive. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*That wasn't agressive, lol. You must be very sheltered! I think any government source in the U.S. is okay, but I don't take most any source, on its own, to be the end all and be all. I have found entries in the Fact Book that are severely dated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:22, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: I was just wondering where the 2007 estimates came from. The Factbook has 2006 estimates, so it's not too dated. Whatever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== English as official language? ==

English has never been codified as an official language of the United States. Many individual states have taken this action, some with the addition of additional minority languages. The page should be changed to reflect this. [[User:Prosody|Prosody]] 18:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:You are correct. its not an official language yet. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::<s>He is not correct. The article doesn't call English the ''[[official language]]''. There is a taxobox entry tagged ''language''. This is merely informative, in case someone didn't know what language most Americans speak.</s>

::We need an article on the "English as an official language" controversy. It relates to immigration and to the [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] conflict. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:59, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Good catch, Prosody! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:42, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Meanwhile the Wiki link is not valid - It should be English language not English (unofficial language. [[User:ViyotrNielson|ViyotrNielson]] 18:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United States of America

2008-03-17T17:00:59Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* Is America really a Christian nation? */

{{protect|TK}}

==Freedom of religion==
The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --[[User:John|John]] 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Is America really a Christian nation?==

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A pretty common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation?
[[User:Moderatedemocrat]] 10:01, 17 March 2007 (PST)

==Spreading democracy==
The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up

=="greatest"==
The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Changed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==PGA==
I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Jefferson, 1804-1806. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Parties ==

The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("[[divided government]]"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on [[Political Parties in the U.S.]] would be a good thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Background ==

After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:::By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, ''some'' people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::::I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.[[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==
===Reversion of this section by RobS?===

I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gender&diff=prev&oldid=144719] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=145528&oldid=144493] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,
:*"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases '''Dominionist''', argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.
:confirms those suspicions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:::This paragraph,
::::"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.
:::appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Evenning RobS==

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.

However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.

I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.

Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?

Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.

I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
[[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)

== Earlier history ==
History before 1600 totally missing. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:History of land still totally missing. Or is this a land without any history?! Write someting about it or open this article for others to write... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== Hello RobS & CPAdmin==
Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)

== Map? ==

It seems to be rather missing? [[User:Human|subHuman]] 18:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Map? I don't even see it in the page history. Explain. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::A map , you know, a diagram showing where the United States is. The 48 + 2, + territories, perhaps? If I had a good one in my files I would have uploaded it... This comment needed ''explaining''?[[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, because your post infered, to me, that there was one at some point, and was now "missing". You were not clear, and I was asking what you meant. Then you respond with your usual nastiness. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry if my original style was opaque. Let me rephrase: "Where is a map of the country?"!!! I think you infer nastiness where constructivism is intended. After all, ''wouldn't this article be better'' with a map? And as I said, I would have added it, if I had a decent PD one on hand. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, suggest a place to squeeze the map into! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Specifics about each state
I think we need to have specifics info about each of the 50 states or at least links to them.

:*See below about a list of States. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello ==

I agree, perhaps I am confused, but shouldn't, in the first paragraph, where it says "50 states" that phrase actually link to an actual list of the states? [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 12:26, May 28, 2007 (EDT)

*It might become confusing having an article on the fifty United States and the the United States of America...but I would love to see someone create a side-box or some kind of one, listing the States! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Greatest economy==

The economy of US is acutally behind that of the EU, so this point in the article is false.
::The EU is not a country. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

::The is a list of [[per capita income]], which provides the information that the USA comes in forth, just behind Denmark and Qater and just ahead of Sweden. However, the US is larger than any of the richest states and has the larger economy when population is not taken in account - perhaps this could be specified?[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]].

*Another odd, skewed factoid. Consider this, a real measure of the economy; 2nd Quarter, 2007, the real dollar growth of the U.S. GNP, about 3%, was greater than the total economy of China. I wonder where that leaves Qater and Denmark? Muahahaha! Per capita figures are bogus for many reasons, not the least of which is the infrastructure that people in the United States enjoy, and take for granted, that just isn't in place in those other countries. One also has to consider tax rates, etc. Where are not equal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::You are correct in China, the economy is seen as important as it is emerging, but considering the number of people, it is still very small. That is why China is not on teh Per Capita list.

:::Denmark has a very high quality of life, I am not sure what you mean by infastructure, but it would certainly be as high as the US, if not higher. After all, free higher educaiton, free healthcare, slight higher life expectancy (though both do poorly there, obesity being the problem in the USA I assume and there is too much smoking in Denmark).[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 08:14, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

However, the country is much smaller so the total size of the economy is smaller.

== Republic vs. Democracy ==

The info box lists the U.S. government as a "Federal Constitutional Republic/Representative Democracy".

According to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. These are two very different forms of government and our Founding Fathers specifically stated their distate of a Democracy. Saying "Representative Democracy" is actually a contrast in terms. In effect, it really is an odd way of saying "Republic".

I would suggest that this be changed merely to "Constitutional Republic" or just leave it as "Federal Constitutional Republic" and leave off the "Representative Democracy" since the latter is convoluted and inaccurate. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:30, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps a too picky a point, Scorpio, as common useage says Representative Democracy quite often, but your logic is sound, and I have removed that bit as you suggested. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, this is why I have become one of your biggest fans. :) Clarity of mind is such a rarity that when I spot it, I can't help but be thankful I have encountered it. Thanks for taking care of this issue. Also, please let me know if I can work with you on any articles where you would like my input. Always anxious to help out a friend. Best Regards. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling/Grammatical Mistakes ==

"Alaska in located in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean."

Should be "is located", but since the article is locked...
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:19, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for pointing out the mistake! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== Summary Table ==

The figures in the summary table is uncited - where did they come from? Is it possible to change them to cited facts? (e.g. GDP per capita being $44,000 (2006 estimate), from CIA World Factbook.)

The numbers from the World Factbook is not that different from ones given in the table, but at least it's a citation (and I think it's reliable... or is it considered "liberal deceit" in CP?) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Wilst humor is often appreciated, continual, never-ending snipes are not, ATang. Rest your neck. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not intended as humour - I don't know what the "conservative" stance on CIA World Factbook is. I know people who trust it, and others who don't. Many instances I look at something as fact and it's considered liberal bias here. I'm just trying to improve an article. There's no need to get aggressive. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*That wasn't agressive, lol. You must be very sheltered! I think any government source in the U.S. is okay, but I don't take most any source, on its own, to be the end all and be all. I have found entries in the Fact Book that are severely dated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:22, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: I was just wondering where the 2007 estimates came from. The Factbook has 2006 estimates, so it's not too dated. Whatever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== English as official language? ==

English has never been codified as an official language of the United States. Many individual states have taken this action, some with the addition of additional minority languages. The page should be changed to reflect this. [[User:Prosody|Prosody]] 18:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:You are correct. its not an official language yet. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::<s>He is not correct. The article doesn't call English the ''[[official language]]''. There is a taxobox entry tagged ''language''. This is merely informative, in case someone didn't know what language most Americans speak.</s>

::We need an article on the "English as an official language" controversy. It relates to immigration and to the [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] conflict. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:59, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Good catch, Prosody! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:42, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Meanwhile the Wiki link is not valid - It should be English language not English (unofficial language. [[User:ViyotrNielson|ViyotrNielson]] 18:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:United States of America

2008-03-17T17:00:23Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* Freedom of religion */

{{protect|TK}}

==Freedom of religion==
The thing on freedom of religion should be improved, as most people interpret it primarily as freedom of belief first, government noninterference second. I'm thinking an article on freedom of religion would probably be warranted, as that's a major issue in the world today. --[[User:John|John]] 14:13, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::Shouldn't that go under Bill of Rights or US Constitution?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:28, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Is America really a Christian nation?==

What our founding fathers had to say about religion:

The argument that our country is a "Christian Nation" is pretty easy to disprove. A pretty common argument involves mention of the "In God We Trust" phrase which appears on both our paper and coin currencies. Of course, this phrase didn't appear on the coins until the late 1800s, and not on the the bills until the 1950s.

In addition, many of our founding fathers were not Christians. Some quotes from those clever folks:

John Adams:

"God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there will never be any liberal science in the world."

George Washington:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society." -- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

Benjamin Franklin:

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."

Thomas Jefferson:

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." - letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

“Christianity is the most perverted system ever shone to man.”

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

The Treaty of Tripoli:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

"The biblical verse Genesis 1:16 reads: “God made two great light, the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. The sun, the 'greater light,' is but one of countless stars and that the 'lesser light' is the moon, which really is not a light at all, rather a reflector of light."

Some Christians claim that because the majority of people in America are Christian, America is a Christian Nation. However this argument has many holes in it. For example, does that mean that because there are a majority of women in America, America is a female Nation?
[[User:Moderatedemocrat]] 10:01, 17 March 2007 (PST)

==Spreading democracy==
The part about spreading democracy is empirically not true. There were much more significant increases, especially throughout the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union. The spreading of democracy has been a stated goal of the United States throughout its entire history. So I have deleted the last line because it just sounds like speechwriter hyperbole. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

This article needs to be cleaned up

=="greatest"==
The part of the introduction "is widely considered one of the greatest and most powerful nations on Earth" is a personal perspective, and should be changed to "is widely considered one of the most INFLUENTIAL and powerful nations on Earth". The word greatest symbolises arrogance, as most people would deem there own country the 'greatest'. --[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 16:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:Changed. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==PGA==
I think this is a pretty good article (are there noms for pretty good articles here on CP?). I just added a quick blurb about Lewis and Clark to the LA territory paragraph, can someone add years and the President who commissioned them to do the job? [[User:Human|Human]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Jefferson, 1804-1806. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:35, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks, I, the lazy person, added that. [[User:Human|Human]] 20:01, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Political Parties ==

The article says the US has been governed by one of two parties since JQA. Then it goes on to say that one of the two was founded in 1854. If the 'two parties' isn't referring to any two particular parties, wouldn't it be from the first Adams? Even during the Era of Good Feelings, the Federalists had a big chunk of Congress from New England. I think. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 19:48, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:It doesn't make real sense anyway - the US has often been "governed" (if we take the exec and leg branches to be the governing bodies) by the two parties together - ie, a president from one party and congress run half or all by the other party ("[[divided government]]"). Now it is true that the two houses and the presidency have been controlled by one of the two major parties, I guess. Since when, I don't know. Maybe an article on [[Political Parties in the U.S.]] would be a good thing? [[User:Human|Human]] 20:05, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Background ==

After reading the main page, and your above comments on GOD, Political parties, Constitutional documents and such, I have made an attempt to consolidate all that you have said into a revised section that I have named: "Background, GOD, The Constitution, and Political Parties". I tried to essentially rewrite what was already there, but re-arranged in a more "logical flow" , and to make it easier to read. I did my did my best. Hope you like it. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 16:45, May 5, 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:I'm glad someone already fixed the "allcaps" words. I split the section in two, since the first half was about one thing, and then in the middle the religion issue is introduced and discussed. I hope I have not offended anyone with my decision to do this. [[User:Human|Human]] 19:52, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::The section needed a rewrite. I tried to make the section a bit more balanced, while still staying on the conservative side of balance. [[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 23:12, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

:::By the way, "In America today, an individual's party affiliation is often determined by their personal view of the relationship between religion and government." is insane and completely ignores why many people choose how to vote. It is a completely strange POV. Of course, ''some'' people decide how to vote based on that criterion - but not many. Often? That's pushing it. Can this we reworded to perhaps show how the energization of the Christian right wing is related to it (this site, for example)? [[User:Human|Human]] 00:08, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::::I completely agree with you, but I was afraid I might face a ban for suggesting this isn't a Christian nation being overrun by the pagan hordes.[[User:Stile4aly|Stile4aly]] 07:04, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==
===Reversion of this section by RobS?===

I don't know why, but the cleaning up we just did was reverted back to Starfleet's version by RobS. 1. It clearly is two sections, the first part has nothing to do with the religion in government. 2. The use of allcaps is very distracting, I do believe it is "God", not "GOD". There's no need to shout, right? 3. The section(s) were beginning to get very clear and wll written, after Starfleets bringing them together logically. Would someone with either the nerve or the rank please undo this reversion? I'm not going to war with a sysop, even if I think I'm generally correct here. I like not being blocked. [[User:Human|Human]] 13:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:User:Stile4aly was infintely blocked for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gender&diff=prev&oldid=144719] All his edits are suspect. The removal of this information, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_of_America&diff=145528&oldid=144493] had not been properly vetted yet, and Stile4aly replacement of it with this,
:*"A contentious issue in modern politics is the role of religion in public life and particularly government entanglement in religious affairs. Some groups that self identify as Republican, or in some cases '''Dominionist''', argue that the US was founded on Christian principles and that the modern US Government should be more lenient with regards to entanglement of Christianity with politics.
:confirms those suspicions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

::Ah, thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I do that reformatting again, then? All I am going to do is split that section in two, as I did before, and get rid of the allcaps stuff. I doubt I'll touch any text, except maybe to make bigger paragraphs. I knew there had to a be a reason... [[User:Human|Human]] 13:51, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

== sysop ==

:::This paragraph,
::::"The Declaration of Independence acknowledges the existence of a [[God]] when it refers to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and says all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," though the latter statement was made by [[Thomas Jefferson]], whose religious beliefs had far more in common with Unitarianism then traditional Christianity. Some Christians argued that since many of the Founding Fathers were Christians (although the majority of them could actually be qualified as Deists) and that, explicitly or not, the United States was founded upon the principles and ideals of Christianity. However, the freedom of (and from) religion (stating that the government cannot interfere in the conduct of religious groups, or vice versa) is a fundamental aspect of the [[First Amendment]] to the Constitution. This separation is a continuing source of conflict in American society, generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others. This [[Free Exercise Clause]] of the Amendment began increasingly to be tested and interpreted by the [[judiciary]] in the late 19th century as a result of the increasing population of religious [[minorities]] in the United States.
:::appears to be entirely removed or rewritten by Starfleet and Stile4aly, and I haven't had the time to review both their contributions yet.Feel free to work on it, but i still have to go over whats been preserved and what's been lost. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Evenning RobS==

Thank you for taking the time to review this.

As you can see in the above notes, yesterday, I rewrote / re-arranged the BACKGROUND paragraph that you have listed above. I did not change very much, but simply rewrote what was already there, and made it easier to read, and a bit more logically arranged. I tried to make it read more smoothly. I did that based on the previous comments of the other readers who complained that it was confusing, and rambled.

However, Stile4aly is wrong to state that the paragraph should be split in two. It is quite obvious from reading the orginal paragraph, that the INTENT of the original writer was to show the "cause and effect" relationship between the first issue ( the transition in governing documents to an "all powerful" US Constitution ) and how the interference / re-interpretation of that ( all powerful document ) US Constitution in recent decades by the current US Supreme Court has caused the second issue ( Church and State ) to become such a prominent and divisive issue in US political life today. Time is important. This country is 231 years old, and for the first 190 years of this country, the US Supreme Court held the exact opposite view on the "Church / State" issue than that which the current Court has held for only the last 45 years or so.

I tried to help the original writer make his case, by re-arranging what he wrote in a more "logical" form.

Next, in regards to capital letters. ? I capitalized only one word. GOD. Please do not be confused by the current internet / chatroom opinion that "all caps" is yelling. This is an Encyclopedia. It is not a chat room, or a forum !!! The use of "all caps" in an encyclopedia is quite appropriate for the word GOD. The word GOD is printed in "all caps" by most religions, and periodicals to differentiate between the one, all powerful GOD, and the other lesser Gods of Greek mythology, etc. In addition, the word GOD is in all caps in the Declaration of Independence if I recall. Perhaps Mr. Stile4aly would like to re-write it too ?

Finally, there was one sentence that I did remove from the paragraph, you included it above: "generally between those attempting to exert their own religious or anti-religious views over others." That sentence appears to be a slap, and un-necessary one at that. This is an Encyclopedia!! we shouldn't go around insulting each other's motives.

I hope this explanation helps you make your decision as to what you keep. Have a nice day.
[[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 21:08, May 6, 2007 (EDT)

== Earlier history ==
History before 1600 totally missing. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:57, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== - ==

I assume it is missing because events prior to 1783 predate the United States. Perhaps it should be a new article on colonial North America?--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 18:00, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:History of land still totally missing. Or is this a land without any history?! Write someting about it or open this article for others to write... --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 18:47, 15 January 2008 (EST)

== Hello RobS & CPAdmin==
Corrected some minor typo's, and placed the term "American" in the place of "United Statesians" that someone had inserted. Corrected two run-on sentences. Hope this helps. [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 10:45, May 9, 2007 (EDT)

== Map? ==

It seems to be rather missing? [[User:Human|subHuman]] 18:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Map? I don't even see it in the page history. Explain. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:08, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
::A map , you know, a diagram showing where the United States is. The 48 + 2, + territories, perhaps? If I had a good one in my files I would have uploaded it... This comment needed ''explaining''?[[User:Human|Human]] 21:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, because your post infered, to me, that there was one at some point, and was now "missing". You were not clear, and I was asking what you meant. Then you respond with your usual nastiness. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Sorry if my original style was opaque. Let me rephrase: "Where is a map of the country?"!!! I think you infer nastiness where constructivism is intended. After all, ''wouldn't this article be better'' with a map? And as I said, I would have added it, if I had a decent PD one on hand. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

*Now, suggest a place to squeeze the map into! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Specifics about each state
I think we need to have specifics info about each of the 50 states or at least links to them.

:*See below about a list of States. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:54, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hello ==

I agree, perhaps I am confused, but shouldn't, in the first paragraph, where it says "50 states" that phrase actually link to an actual list of the states? [[User:Starfleet7|Starfleet7]] 12:26, May 28, 2007 (EDT)

*It might become confusing having an article on the fifty United States and the the United States of America...but I would love to see someone create a side-box or some kind of one, listing the States! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:52, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

==Greatest economy==

The economy of US is acutally behind that of the EU, so this point in the article is false.
::The EU is not a country. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:23, 17 June 2007 (EDT)

::The is a list of [[per capita income]], which provides the information that the USA comes in forth, just behind Denmark and Qater and just ahead of Sweden. However, the US is larger than any of the richest states and has the larger economy when population is not taken in account - perhaps this could be specified?[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]].

*Another odd, skewed factoid. Consider this, a real measure of the economy; 2nd Quarter, 2007, the real dollar growth of the U.S. GNP, about 3%, was greater than the total economy of China. I wonder where that leaves Qater and Denmark? Muahahaha! Per capita figures are bogus for many reasons, not the least of which is the infrastructure that people in the United States enjoy, and take for granted, that just isn't in place in those other countries. One also has to consider tax rates, etc. Where are not equal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:56, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::You are correct in China, the economy is seen as important as it is emerging, but considering the number of people, it is still very small. That is why China is not on teh Per Capita list.

:::Denmark has a very high quality of life, I am not sure what you mean by infastructure, but it would certainly be as high as the US, if not higher. After all, free higher educaiton, free healthcare, slight higher life expectancy (though both do poorly there, obesity being the problem in the USA I assume and there is too much smoking in Denmark).[[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 08:14, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

However, the country is much smaller so the total size of the economy is smaller.

== Republic vs. Democracy ==

The info box lists the U.S. government as a "Federal Constitutional Republic/Representative Democracy".

According to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. is a Republic. It is not a Democracy. These are two very different forms of government and our Founding Fathers specifically stated their distate of a Democracy. Saying "Representative Democracy" is actually a contrast in terms. In effect, it really is an odd way of saying "Republic".

I would suggest that this be changed merely to "Constitutional Republic" or just leave it as "Federal Constitutional Republic" and leave off the "Representative Democracy" since the latter is convoluted and inaccurate. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 14:30, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps a too picky a point, Scorpio, as common useage says Representative Democracy quite often, but your logic is sound, and I have removed that bit as you suggested. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:34, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, this is why I have become one of your biggest fans. :) Clarity of mind is such a rarity that when I spot it, I can't help but be thankful I have encountered it. Thanks for taking care of this issue. Also, please let me know if I can work with you on any articles where you would like my input. Always anxious to help out a friend. Best Regards. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 15:23, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Spelling/Grammatical Mistakes ==

"Alaska in located in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean."

Should be "is located", but since the article is locked...
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:19, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Thanks for pointing out the mistake! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:27, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== Summary Table ==

The figures in the summary table is uncited - where did they come from? Is it possible to change them to cited facts? (e.g. GDP per capita being $44,000 (2006 estimate), from CIA World Factbook.)

The numbers from the World Factbook is not that different from ones given in the table, but at least it's a citation (and I think it's reliable... or is it considered "liberal deceit" in CP?) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:26, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Wilst humor is often appreciated, continual, never-ending snipes are not, ATang. Rest your neck. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:30, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: It's not intended as humour - I don't know what the "conservative" stance on CIA World Factbook is. I know people who trust it, and others who don't. Many instances I look at something as fact and it's considered liberal bias here. I'm just trying to improve an article. There's no need to get aggressive. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:36, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*That wasn't agressive, lol. You must be very sheltered! I think any government source in the U.S. is okay, but I don't take most any source, on its own, to be the end all and be all. I have found entries in the Fact Book that are severely dated. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:22, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: I was just wondering where the 2007 estimates came from. The Factbook has 2006 estimates, so it's not too dated. Whatever. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:10, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== English as official language? ==

English has never been codified as an official language of the United States. Many individual states have taken this action, some with the addition of additional minority languages. The page should be changed to reflect this. [[User:Prosody|Prosody]] 18:36, 22 August 2007 (EDT)
:You are correct. its not an official language yet. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::<s>He is not correct. The article doesn't call English the ''[[official language]]''. There is a taxobox entry tagged ''language''. This is merely informative, in case someone didn't know what language most Americans speak.</s>

::We need an article on the "English as an official language" controversy. It relates to immigration and to the [[pluralism]] vs. [[particularism]] conflict. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:59, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Good catch, Prosody! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:42, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Meanwhile the Wiki link is not valid - It should be English language not English (unofficial language. [[User:ViyotrNielson|ViyotrNielson]] 18:26, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Creationism

2007-11-19T23:21:10Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* The REAL Facts */

== The REAL Facts ==
There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that any intelligent being created, well, anything.

You cannot use religion to try to claim a scientific theory. The fact is that there is no evidence to support Creationism. This article is so biased in support of religion, it makes me sick. Do you people really think that all Republicans are evangelical Christians?

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Creationism

2007-11-19T23:18:56Z

Moderatedemocrat: /* Added material about Dover Trial */

== The REAL Facts ==
There is absolutely NO proof whatsoever that any intelligent being created, well, anything.

== ID and creationism ==

The article discusses ID as if it was a form of creationism. It is not. It is a criticism of the theory of evolution. That is why the people referred to in the ID paragraph are able to simultaneously support ID while they hold differing views on creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:22, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The article explicitly says that "It is unclear if Intelligent Design amounts to a form of creationism and if so, where to place it in comparison to the other forms of creationism". Given the source material this seems like a reasonable description of the matter. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:06, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::What I am saying is that ID is not a form of creationism. It is not "unclear" at all. ID is more properly seen as an offshoot or product of creationism. It makes no attempt to describe how the world was created other than by saying that there was a designer. In that sense it just supports creationism. It really is merely a re-statement of the argument from incredulity (i.e. I don't understand how that could have happened, therefore it must be God). The problem with the particular paragraph in the article is that it indicates that there is a question surrounding the classification of ID where none in fact exisits. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:21, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Horace, your vision of the article would include a bias, while saying that it is ''unclear'' whether Intelligent Design amounts to a form of Creationism yields no bias. --[[User:David R|David R]] 22:34, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: Horace, I'm going to have to disagree here. At least one proponent of ID, Chris Buttars, a state senator of Utah repeatedly called it "Divine Design" and Dembski's Logos comment sounds very close to creationism- the Logos is (to many theologians, and arguably from a straight reading of the text of John) the creative spark. If ID is about the Logos, it is creationism. It seems clear to me that there is sufficient ambiguity that the current version should stand. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::I am not sure that comments by state senators are in any way helpful (in this discussion anyway). I imagine you could find a state senator to say almost anything. You will have to help me out with you reference to the Logos. What is that? I was approaching this in what I intended to be a purely logical manner. The article suggests that there is some mystery surrounding the fact that several persons accept ID but hold different views on creation. There is no such mystery when you appreciate what ID is. It is not a version of creationism. It is a support to creationism. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 22:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Demsbki stated (in the source referenced in the article) "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." The first verse of the John refers to the Logos, or "word" in Greek. A common translation of the verse is "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" Or alternatively, ""In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God" According to many Christian theologians (indeed, pretty much all the Catholics and as far as I'm aware, most of the Protestants) the Logos in John is intrisically connected to the creation ex nihilo as described in Genesis in which God speaks. Pope Benedict for example said that "Christianity must always remember that it is the religion of the `Logos.' It is faith in the "Creator Spiritus," in the Creator Spirit, from which proceeds everything tha" Indeed, looking at the next few verses, one sees the the strong connection between the Logos, creation and Jesus. The second verse is "He was in the beginning with God" and "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being." (using the NAS translation here, but most translations will be substantially similar for our purposes). Claiming that ID is the Logos theology is to come about as close to identifying ID with creationism in the broad sense as one can without going out and saying it. Given that such claims came from William Dembski, one of the chief proponents of Intelligent Design, it is very hard to see this is as not strong evidence for the creationist nature of ID. There is a large body of evidence other than Dembski's comment, which if you want I can discuss. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::I am sure this Dembski fellow is as bright as the next creationist, but what do YOU think? It seems to me that we are talking about a matter of logic. You know what ID is. You tell me how the shared beliefs of Nelson and Behe in ID is in any way inconsistent with their differing views on creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:19, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::::::: Hmm? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you arguing simply that we should remove the sentences noting that Nelson and Behe disagree on the age of the earth? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:23, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::My primary position is that references to ID ought be minimal. ID is not creationism. It is a tool of creationism. Unlike all other creation stories (careful Horace) it says nothing about creation other than that there was a designer. It has no creation week. It does not propose that the world is balanced on the backs of a tower of turtles. Nor that it was thought into existence by Tepeu and Gucumatz. It is really just a criticism of the theory of evolution. My secondary position is that the references to the difficulty of reconciling the beliefs of Nelson and Behe are misguided (no doubt those gentlemen will be relieved). When one thinks about what ID is, there is no logical contradiction in the both of them believing in ID at the same time as believing in their different versions of creation. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 23:43, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::::::: Ok, I propose that we split this into a variety of different issues: 1) Is there enough of a question about the nature of ID that we should discuss the matter? 2) If we do so, should we discuss that different proponents of ID have different opinions in regard to the details of creation- this second question only makes much sense in light of the first, so I suggest we resolve the first question before discussing the second. To the first question, I would answer yes, even given your phrasing, in that there was creation week, nor anything similar, you still call it a "creation story." Now, we are using the sourced defintion of creationism that "Creationism is the belief that the universe was originally created by God." Given the comments, whether ID is form of belief in the universe being created by God certainly seems to be under dispute. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: I will contemplate the matter further overnight. Thanks for your considered views. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 00:07, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::::::::: OK. Perhaps I have bitten off more than I can chew here.

ID is creationism. All its proponents know it - they are almost all Christian, and when ID refers to the 'designer' is it clear as day that this is intended to refer to the Almighty God. It is a great shame that the actions of anti-christian zealots mean these people are now forced to hide their faith in order to appear respectable. But its still teaching that God is the creator of all life, and to replace God with a 'designer' is bordering on blastphemy. ID is Christian Creationism, and should say so with pride. - BornAgainBrit

:It's more of a legal than a religious issue. If ID is "a form of Creationism" then it's much easier to advance legal arguments against teaching it. If it's "not Creationism" it's much harder to keep it out of classrooms.

:I think that's why JoshuaZ pounced on it, last month. And NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott likes to refer to ID as "Intelligent Design Creationism" (so she gets her point in handily).

:ID, however, is an argument that evolution '''looks like''' it happened as the result of a deliberate design process. This is not, if I may split a philosophical hair, the same as asserting that Someone designed it. It's just saying that it shows signs of "having been designed".

:Edgar Allen Poe's story, ''Murders in the Rue Morgue'' is a detective story with the novel twist of person found dead in a locked room. Nobody could possibly have gotten in, but still the victim '''showed signs of having been murdered'''. Thus, the detective reasons that he must have been killed deliberately by a being of some sort. I won't spoil the story for you completely, but it hinges on what sort of being or creature or thing was the killer.

:The distinction has more than legal significance. It also poses a challenge to the idea that [[natural selection]] can create a substantially new form of life. ID opponents don't want to talk about this aspect; they're hoping to slap ID down with the "creationist" label and walk away victoriously.

:ID's main argument is (1) some species appear to have features, abilities or organs which are [[irreducibly complex]], i.e., incapable of being assembled by "random" forces. They thus show signs of "having been designed" (which is weasel worded on purpose). Perhaps, though, we should continue this discussion at [[talk:Intelligent Design]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Problems with the section "Attempts to Criticize Creationism" ==

There are many problems with this section. It includes a high degree of imprecision and conflation between the different meanings of the term "creationist." There is very little criticism directed at creationism in the general sense (unless you count general arguments against religion). The vast majority of arguments are about YEC or various other forms of creationism.

1. The first section about Augustine seems to be grossly out of context. I'm not aware who argues that Augustine was not a creationist (nor for that matter, that it would make much sense someone to otherwise). This seems to be part of the general problem of conflating Young Earth Creationism with Creationism in general. Furthermore, as criticisms of creationism go, this would be very far down on the list (and again, isn't even much of a criticism of creationism but a criticism of insisting on certain close to literal Biblical interpretations)

2. The second refers to "Young-earth creationism, which holds that the earth is about 7000 years old, is consistent with many observations, such as the existence and nature of the freshwater Great Lakes, the young moon and the Grand Canyon." First, even if all of these were young features it would in no way argue for young earth creationism but rather that these specific features were old. Second of all, claiming that things are old doesn't make them so especially when there is a large disagreement with these claims by most relevant scientists. At minimum, some form of note that YECism argues that these objects are young would be necessary. Finally, I'm not sure if the writer of this read the above parts of the article where YECism is defined, since a repeated definition is uncessary (and the range given above of 6000-10000 is a bit more precise. In fact, the lower end seems to be about 5500 with the upper end of most creationists at 6500 and the only way one gets towards the upper end is by minor day lengthening generally).

3. "Creationism is accepted by most Americans and by the most significant scientists in history. Intolerance by opponents of creationism has led to a silencing of contemporary scientists on this issue, but many risk their careers by speaking out against theories that earth is somehow billions of years old." The first sentence has a multitude of problems. The sentence is true seems to confuse the matter of general creationism and young earth creationism. About half the US population are YEC, while about 90% acknowledge some form of creator deity. (According to the November 2004 Gallup Poll, the numbers are 45% answered yes to "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so?", 38% answered yes to "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process" 13% believed that humans had evolved without divine intervention, and 4% were undecided (or gave an unclassifiable other answer)). Thus, if one means that most Americans are creationists in this very general sense then it is true. However, the fraction of the American population that believes in creation of any form is irrelevant in this context (which is a section on ''criticisms'' of creationism). If this is an attempt to argue for creationism, then it is an almost textbook example of ad populum falllacy. The claim about "the most significant scientists in history" is also interesting. Again, whether one is talking about YEC or some other form of creationism becomes highly relevant. If one is talking about creationism in general, this seems hardly relevant. If one is talking about YECism, then about whom we are talking becomes highly relevant. There are a fair set of standard lists of scientists who were YECs, and many of the standard individuals on the lists (such as Newton) were around well before any modern theories about the age of the earth or related issues. Furthermore, science is not decided by authority and so the presence of notable historical scientists who were creationists (of any sort) is simply irrelevant (and note also that in its more general forms, creationism is not a scientific claim at all but a religious one anyways). The final sentence is unsourced and most likely false. I'd love to see examples of this supposed "intolerance" and the assertion that many "risk their careers." I have trouble seeing Henry F. Schaefer who is an avowed and loud creationist and one of the world's most respected chemists as being silenced or having his career threatened.

If this is to include important, actually common criticism of Young Earth Creationism, it should discuss among other major issues, varves, the doublenested hierarchy, why creationists claim there is a clear cut line between apes and humans in the fossil record but can't agree with eachother which ones are apes and which are fossils. All of those would be good for starters. And all of that should go on the page for [[Young Earth Creationism]], not creationism in general . [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

==Creationism as Myth==

Please do not remove this section unless you can provide appropriate references to show that the information within is incorrect. This is Conservapedia. We are interested here in the truth, not in bias. If you are looking for bias, your edits would be more welcome at wikipedia. If there are references that show that Creationism is indeed a science, you would serve the community better by posting them, rather than just deleting entries you do not like. It would be helpful if you read the guidelines for editing an entry before randomly deleting lines. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 23:49, 26 February 2007 (EST)

== deleted material on Catholicism ==

Deleted a bunch of stuff about the position of the Catholic church because it's not very accurate.

I understand that Catholicism is hard to understand. If you can't get it right, don't write anything at all.

I don't think Theistic Evolution is the position of the Catholic Church. Rather, Theistic Evolution *is compatible* with the Catholic Faith. Other theories may also be compatible with the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has no position on evolution, per se. The article quoted even says that this is "a theological non-issue." God has an ultimate role in man's creation, but whether that is by theistic evolution or by direct creation, or through some other method, is irrelevant. --[[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]]

Read chapter 62 - 70 here about the position of the Vatican. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> I would say it acknowledges the success of modern sciences, including cosmology ("Big Bang") as well as evolution theory. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Talk Origins Archive ==

Conservative has now twice removed the TOA as "trashy" and "full of errors". This seems wrong at a number of levels 1) This is a misuse of the word "trashy" 2) The claim that it is "full of errors" is both unsubstantiated opinion and frankly irrelevant. Given that Scientific American and others have listed the TOA as an important resource for this topic, even if one disagrees with them one cannot argue that it is highly relevant to the topic at hand. 3) Given that we link to both OEC and YEC ministries and only one group can be correct, by that logic we should take out one group since it is presumably full of errors. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Joshua, Talk Origins is not "any more biased than AIG" because it does not claim to have any bias. AIG is an organization devoted to promoting Young Earth Creationism. Talk Origins is a place "for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." It does not claim to side with evolutionists yet every post is censored by their biased, pro-evolutionary editors. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 13:45, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: That's not accurate. Talk Origins says straight off on the main page "The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." I'll also note that unlike AIG or ICR, TOA is more than willing to link to YEC and OEC webpages (although in fairness CreationWiki links to TOA). (I note incidentally, that Conservative removed the link wholesale again). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Here is what TalkOrigins states: "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as "pseudo-tails" (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988)."[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2] Here is what the Dubrow abstract at PUBMED states: "'''There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884.''' A new case is described, and its magnetic resonance imaging and pathological features are presented. A review of the literature and analysis of the pathological characteristics reveal that the vestigial human tail may be associated with other abnormalities. Vestigial tails contain adipose and connective tissue, blood vessels, and nerves and are covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord elements are lacking. Tails are easily removed surgically without residual effects. Since 29% (7 of 24) of the reported tails have been associated with other malformations, careful clinical evaluation of these patients is recommended."[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract]

::Here is what the Dao and Netsky abstract states: "'''A case of a tail in a 2-week-old infant is reported, and findings from a review of 33 previously reported cases of true tails and pseudotails are summarized.''' The true, or persistent, vestigial tail of humans arises from the most distal remnant of the embryonic tail. It contains adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of striated muscle, blood vessels, and nerves and is covered by skin. Bone, cartilage, notochord, and spinal cord are lacking. The true tail arises by retention of structures found normally in fetal development. It may be as long as 13 cm, can move and contract, and occurs twice as often in males as in females. A true tail is easily removed surgically, without residual effects. It is rarely familial. Pseudotails are varied lesions having in common a lumbosacral protrusion and a superficial resemblance to persistent vestigial tails. The most frequent cause of a pseudotail in a series of ten cases obtained from the literature was an anomalous prolongation of the coccygeal vertebrae. Additional lesions included two lipomas, and one each of teratoma, chondromegaly , glioma, and a thin, elongated parasitic fetus." [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6373560&dopt=Abstract]

::I may be wrong but I am skeptical of the 100 tale claim of TalkOrigins.org based on the abstracts although I have not read the full articles. More importantly, I believe TalkOrigins sets up a strawman in regards to creationist claims as they do not address this material from a creationist:

::"I asked Dr. Cuozzo (author of the book "Buried Alive") about this, and he said: "Attached is an abstract of a 1988 article on human tails. I do not believe they are vestigial as is claimed in the abstract, by custom in our evolutionary environment, but generally can be considered an abnormality of the spine, since they can be associated, as stated, with malformations in 29 percent of the cases reported. '''Five percent association with congenital malformations would cast doubt on it's true vestigial status in my opinion, but close to 30% suggests that when it does appear solo, it is also a pathologic malformation. This review covers 1884 to 1988 or 104 years and there are only 24 reported cases in that length of time, so you had to be one of these, I assume.''' Note carefully this reviewer says that bone was lacking. It would seem to me that bone would be in every one of these "tails" if it were truly vestigial (from the ape-heritage point of view). Remember also, that the coccyx has some very important anal muscle attachments without which we would be in severe trouble." 17 Dec 2001 One thing to remember is that monkeys have tails. Apes do not. It would be far fetched to say that an Australopithecine still had remnants of a tail, let alone habilis, erectus, or any of the other alleged ape we allegedly evolved from (I do not believe that we did). But for a human to still carry this so called "vestige" is even more unlikely." [http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/vestigial.html] '''

::'''I have looked at other TalkOrigins.org material in the past and I found that they inflated what the actual scientific literature said. For example, a science journal article will have the author say "may" but TalkOrigins.org will not indicate that the author said may and is speculating.''' I wish I had the specific instances at my disposal but it has been a long time since I looked at TalkOrigins.org but '''here is Walter ReMine who claims that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents.''' [http://saintpaulscience.com/talk_origins.htm Walter Remine stating that TalkOrigins.org misrepresents by commission and omission] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::: I don't have time to go through all of this in detail, but to respond briefly you quote TOA as saying "More than 100 cases of human tails have been reported in the medical literature. Less than one third of the well-documented cases are what are medically known as 'pseudo-tails'" and then put in bold the statement from the abstract ""There have been 23 true vestigial tails reported in the literature since 1884." I don't see an issue there, the TOA statement is a less precise but accurate summary of the statement you just quoted. And again, the Dao and Netsky citation is consistent with what TOA says. I haven't had time to read the articles but your statement that you are skeptical of the 100 tail claim simply based on the abstracts is hardly evidence that as you assert TOA is "trash" (I also don't see where your skepticism comes from since both abstracts only mention "true" tails not tails in general which the 100 number refers to). Your quote from Cuozo is from an nth hand website, and Cuozo in any case appears to be an MD and an MDs standards what constitutes something being "vestigial" are not the same precisely as those of a biologist(in fact the definitions will differ the most when one is dealing with a rare throwback. If you want I can expand on this).

::: Continuing, Remine is simply not a reliable source but just one other creationist (and mind you, Remine seems to think that everyone misrepresents him, he's even argued that other creationists have misrepresented him. He in fact seems to think that almost any paraphrase of what he has to say constitutes a misreprestentation).

::: In general, the worst you have is an nth hand quote from a random personal website and and your personal skepticism? That hardly seems sufficient to label a website as so "trashy" and factually inaccurate to disallow it being linked to. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:02, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==Evolutionism==
This strikes me as a silly thing to discuss, but DavidR recently claimed that "evolutionism" is not a word. I contend that it is for several reasons. One: a search on google brings up 452,000 hits. That's quite a number for a term that supposedly doesn't exist. Two: if creationISM is a term, then so should evolutionism. Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism.

Creationism, being the belief that God created the world and its creatures and Man is opposed by the refusal to believe in God and His power. Creationism isn't opposed by true science, it's opposed by beliefs--the beliefs of atheists. Evolutionism is the most appropriate term for this unscientific and religious opposition. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 17:06, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: It is a word, it is also irrelevant. The matter at hand is whether it agrees with evolution as a scientific theory. The term for this is evolution. (And I don't know how much I can emphasise that "creationism" and "evolution" are not opposite parallel terms). Creationism is a general theological doctrine, which can include evolution or not. The opposite of "creationism" in the very general sense is some form of atheism (or certain forms of polytheism). Please read what the article actually says about what the term creationism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:54, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: "Three: it's obvious that evolution is more of a belief system than a simple theory. It's clearly an -ism." It's as much as a belief system as believing the sky is blue can be labled "blueskyism." Creationism was '''ancient''' man's answer to the existence of species (amongst the whole universe) but '''modern''' man has the technology and insight to observe, even influence, genetic mutation. The reasoning that some natural genetic mutation may benefit an individual within a species, causing it to thrive and produce more offspring isn't a great leap in thought. Especially considering how many generations of life there have been over millions of years, evolution is as obvious an answer to modern man as a fictional (yes, i know this will get deleted, but any sane person will agree) being creating the entirity of existence was the obvious answer to ancient man. I'm sure there are minor flaws in detail within Darwinian theory, but remember he made observations that scientists now would find extremely primitive, and his minor flaws aren't an excuse to revert to ancient thinking: ignoring modern academics and relying on people who were little more than tribal witchdoctors who lived thousands of years ago worries me a great deal. Especially as the most powerful country in the world seems to contain the highest portion of creationists. The USA shouldn't be like this. It should be forward thinking. Not backwards.

== Katzmiller ==

I just read over the section of this article on the Katzmiller decision, and the rebutting arguments of the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute lambasts Judge Jones for borrowing heavily from the ACLU's brief in the case, and suggests that this degrades the value of the opinion. After reading the opinion, and the Discovery Institute file on the opinion, I have to disagree that this is as momentous as DI wants it to sound. Judge Jones only "borrows" insofar as he agrees with the statements of the facts, and then notes them in his opinion. This is a common judicial clerk practice, nothing as remarkable as the DI wants it to sound! Insofar as the language of the section suggested otherwise, it has been edited.

Also, I added a cite to a different article favoring the opinion. A short Lexis search shows over 30 law review articles favorably citing the opinion for its legal analysis and its evenhanded treatment of the issue. If you're going to keep the DI cite, I suggest you keep this cite. After all, don't you want to "teach the controversy"?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:08, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== what about others ==

I was going to walk away from this but it is so BLAITENY BIASED that i have to. You state that your site is to be an educational outlook but your section on creationalism is only based off the decendent of Abraham theories. guess what if your going to say there are three main types of creationist theory then your leaving out everyone else. how about Native American theory that all man is formed from the animals giving up of themselves, or Celtic, roman, greek, African, Egyption, Hindu, there are more faiths in the world with there own theory on how the world and man was created then just the book of Genisis why not mention them all or at least put in some information that the creationism you will discuse is only the Abraham christian, jewish, muslim ones and not any of the other just as valid beleif systmes, just because you dont believe in it doesnt meen its false, isnt that what your trying to prove to us that just because we dont believe in your God the theory of intellegent creation doesnt have to be wrong well give the same belief to all the other faiths.

: Hmm? The existence of other forms of creationism is mentioned in the intro paragraph. If you think it should have more detail, then feel free to add it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 16:42, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Added Hindu creation ==

To help account for the previous poster, addressed the addition of Hindu creation, and the problems it takes into account that the Christian Creation story fails; namely, the omnipotence of God and the failure of 'm to create a perfect utopia without evil.

== "Creationism is not a science, it is a belief and therefore is not required to undergo any form of scientific inquiry." ==

I agree with the idea that Creationism is not science, just I like I would say ''Evolutionism'' is not a science. However, both the Theory of Creation and the Theory of Evolution involve scientific things. I removed it only because it's not very fleshed out right and could be misleading to people who do not see that distinction. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No: Creation is a belief. Science is not a belief, insofar as following provable facts to a logical conclusion is not a belief. Creation science is an attempt at science with faith-based rationalization, but Courts cross-country have held (COURTS, mind you) that creation science is not science (see ''Kitzmiller'' 400 F. Supp.2d 724).--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Are courts gods that they are to be held infallible? I propose that liberal courts are just as dead wrong as ordinary liberals. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 14:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I could care less what the majority thinks in relation to that. Often times it's not even the majority, just people with power that happen to make those decisions. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientific to the same degree that Evolution is scientific. Neither one can be conclusively proven. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 14:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::In a sense, nothing can be conclusively and absolutely proven with no doubt whatsoever, we live in a world where we have to choose which one looks best from the available evidence and logic. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 14:42, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Out of curiosity, what is there in the theory of creation that's scientific?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 14:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. Next time you take your medication, you better hope that scientists asre right about evolution. Give me a single example of a practical prediction Creationism has made. I would agree that you need not give citations here. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 14:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Hate to say it, but speciation (macroevolution) and trait change (microevolution) have both been proven conclusively. As has the age of the earth at ''not'' 6000 years. Creation cannot be proven by science, but you're free to accept it on faith. It's just not provable fact. And the judge who said that creation science is not fact is actually a conservative Republican: Judge John E. Jones III.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::No, it has not been proven, and what makes a judge the authority on whether or not creation science is fact. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Courts neutrally weigh evidence presented by experts. Pretty good I'd say. Also, have you '''ever''' read anything about evolution other than Answers in Genesis? I assure you it does ''not'' have all the answers. Check out [http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=evolution&search_submit.x=0&search_submit.y=0&search_submit=go|this, maybe].
::I have no problem with someone taking creationism on faith, I just don't want them trying to design a weapons guidance system or a new vaccine. Teaching Biblical Studies, on the other hand, is great. I'd go to the class.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::what do weapons guidance systems, and vaccines have to do with creation v. evolution. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps we could make a table listing the differences between creationism and science. I think this would show that ID leans more toward the science end of the spectrum. Scientists have their faith, too. It's called [[naturalism]], or the idea that "physical laws can explain everything" which they take on faith. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: You must be joking. Otherwise, this is a blatant offense to any scientist, who believes in God. Are you really claiming being a scientist, physicist in particular is incompatible with Christian faith? --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 16:08, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::ID may lean towards science but it's quite poor science at that.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think you misunderstand a little, Ed. I am a scientist, and science/physical laws are useful at explaining physical phenomenae. I don't think science can answer questions such as "what is the moral purpose of my life?"[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 16:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm actually rather fond of physical law, I think about it often when I put my foot on the brake. Good old F=MA (works every time!) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:Im with you, Ed, but after Newton, things got complicated. Force is easy to comprehend, quantum mechanics isn't, but the theory has allowed, for instance, transistors, silicon chips, etc. As for Tim, if you do not accept the scientific method, then those things become impossible. The same ideas that have allowed advancements in medical science underly evolutionary theory.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::::What makes you think that I do not accept the scientific method?
:BTW, I'm still waiting for any practical predictions Creationism has made. Also, there is no "spectrum". Either something is approached scientifically, or not.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::What practical predictions has evolution made? --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 17:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
:First, non-responsive. To prove creationism is a science you have to answer for it, not assault another theory. I'll give you the detailed answer if someone else doesn't first, but really, it is the basis of all modern biology. Pick up a book. There is no topic of biology that does not rely on this. We make predictions based on the evolutionary relationships of species, not what "holobaramin" they belong to. Genetics cannot be understood without the context of evolution. When you take your medicine, you are benefiting from the predictions allowed by evolution.[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:11, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise: Split Articles ==

I think we need the following

[[Evolution]] as a disambiguation page with the following:

# a [[Creation Theory]] article.

# a REAL, UNCENSORED [[Theory of Evolution]] or [[Scientific Theory of Evolution]] article.

# a [[Creationism]] article (check!)

# Conservative's [[Theory of Evolution]] article renamed [[Creationist Critiques of the Theory of Evolution]].
--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:That sounds fair and balanced, and more importantly, accurate and useful. [[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 17:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's what I've been trying to do with the -ism thing. Have one article that's about the -ism aspect of each viewpoint, and then put the science related issues in a "theory article". --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 17:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a good idea too. But I still think a disambiguation page is critical. Eh? Also, won't we in any case need [[user:Conservative|the overlord of the evolution article]] to release it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:: GREAT job at the people who created the disambig. pages! I like it. Perhaps, to be fair, we should cite Conservative's critiques on the Evolution disambig page, but ensure that they're noted as critiques from a creationist perspective?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:41, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific theory of Evolution. ==

I see that the introduction states: "While creation scientists attempt to justify creationism from a scientific perspective, mainstream scientific descriptions of the origins of life are found in the scientific theory of evolution." But that article has been expunged. Should we change it to something like, "..... are found elsewhere." I thought of making the change but didn't want to be accused of vandalism.

== Classical Greek and Egyptian polytheistic religions. ==

These religions no longer exist; why mention them? Forgot to sign --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 06:51, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually they do live on or at least a derivation of them:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenic_polytheism
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemetic_reconstructionism
[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Young Earth vs. Old Earth Creationist ==
I am begining to see a clear young earth bias. All I did was make a minor edit that young earth creationists were strictly literal while old earth creationists were less literal. Words can have more than one meaning. While young earth creationists use the most general meaning of a word, we can still claim to be making a literal interpretation when using a less common meaning. --[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 21:39, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Mike M, there were a few reasons that I reverted. First, I'm not sure what the distinction is between "strictly literal" and "less literal"; isn't it really a case of "literal" or "not literal". Can you really have shades of literalism?
:Second, the claim that YE Cs use a "strictly-literal" interpretation is denied by YECs themselves. They say things like they read it "plainly/straightforwardly"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2173/31/] or according to the "intention of the author"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/943]. Now this does translate to "literal" in the case of Genesis 1, but "strictly literal" reminds me of the old chestnut that YECs take the whole Bible literally, which is simply not true.
:Third, the one about the OECs taking it less literal is a bit different, because at least some OECs ''do'' claim to take the account literally. However, to be frank, this seems to me to be abuse of the language. Sure, words frequently have more than one meaning, and although some meanings are non-literal meanings, they can have more than one literal meaning. But how can anybody claim with a straight face that "billions of years" is a ''literal'' reading of "6 days" (for example)?[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3301/]
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Although the poetic imagery of Genesis indicates 24 hour days, you know very well, with a straight face, that Yowm can support a day/age interpretation. To say otherwise is to show bias.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, ''yom'' can be read as an indefinite period of time. However, this would not be a ''literal'' reading of the word, which was my point.
::: In addition, Genesis 1 is not poetry; it does not conform to the style of Hebrew poetry. And ''yom'' '''cannot''' mean an indefinite period of time when (a) used with a number (first day, second day, six days), (b) used with "morning", (c) used with "evening", or (d) ''defined'' as being an evening and morning. All apply in the case of Genesis 1.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Maxwell support of ID? ==

James Clerk Maxwell, have made written statements which appear to support Intelligent Design:
: ... the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same kind gives it, as Sir John Herschel has well said, the essential character of a manufactured article.

How does this support ID? One of aspects of physics is that atoms (the components of molecules) are not differentiable (or are, but only by various quantum properties). The identical nature of electrons, atoms, and molecules do not appear to have any relevance to ID or Creationism. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:I dunno, revert the addition if you think it's wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::That is just an opinion. It should be attributed, see [[Conservapedia:Attribution]].
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I suggest everyone step back from this. Ed...please! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:29, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Vatican POV ==

The Holy See in general acknowledges the results from main stream science, such as the "Big Bang" as well as the evolution theory. For example read chapter 62 - 70 of this document. <ref>http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html</ref> --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 18:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==What actually are the Creation Mechanisms?==

I'm trying to find out what is proposed to have happened during those 24-hour days when He created everything around us. I've learned so much from CP, but both this article and the Dinosaur article seem to spend most of their time debunking ToE theories as to what happened, but there's no actual discussion of what the mechanisms of Creation are supposed to be? How actually, is it proposed that God created all these animals and plants, etc, all over the world, in brief 24-hour spurts? I know we can never actually know, but if there are theories, I'd love to read them. I'd love to find some sources where I can read about all of this if anyone can help? God bless [[User:50something|50something]] 15:00, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

== "Doctor" Norman L. Geisler ==

This article sites a "Dr. Norman Geisler" as an authority as a scientist or medical doctor discussing other peer-reviewed information on the "science" of the creation of the universe, the Earth, man, etc. Dr. Norman Geisler has a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University. He holds no other advanced degrees or any other degrees in the sciences. I graduated from law school and received a juris doctor, but I do not call myself "Dr. Baker." This article's reference to Geisler as "Dr. Geisler" is misleading in that it implies that he is a scientist who is espousing the religious belief of creationism or summarizing the views of scientists who believe in this same view. I'm not surprised this article was locked for editing, since its riddled with false and misleading information. This reference to "Dr." Geisler is just one minor example. {{unsigned|Cbaker3122}}
:Please quote the bit you are referring to, because I can't see anywhere that Geisler is cited "discussing other peer-reviewed information". And why do you put quote marks around "science" in your first sentence? Given that I can't find your single example of the article being "riddled with false and misleading information", I have serious doubt that it really is so riddled. Perhaps demonstrating that one or a few others might (hypothetically) change my mind. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:04, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dates ==

Since this is protected, could someone please dewiki link the dates? Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 23:47, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-11-19T23:17:15Z

Moderatedemocrat:

{{protected|TK}}
[[/Archive 1]]
[[/Archive 2]]

== Editing This Page ==

*Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''Will will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.
Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).

Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?
Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Solar variation and global warming ==

A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy over the facts ==

Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].

Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as "controversial facts". It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion.

In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==

The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace

: Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no "November 23, 2003" issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro "example" of Gore "being wrong". There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

*Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

== Lead sentence suggestion ==

The article leads with "The global warming warming issue ..." I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming "is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol" does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say "The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature". {{unsigned|Gantczak}}

:I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}

== Ed Poor ==

[http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).

The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.

The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.

The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a "[[scientific consensus]]" in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.

In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out.

There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a "bunch of hot air", Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.

There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==
In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

:Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

*See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
**This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work.
**It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.
Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==

Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....

<blockquote>
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated. 

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising. 

'''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."''' 

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. 

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.''' 

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." '''The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.''' 

'''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

==Are the images really necessary?==
Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.
Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?
--[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with Ed... ==

...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!

== Needed Entry ==
In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}

*No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]

*LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221

*Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== Global warming predicted by scripture ==

I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.
But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. 
:We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

*Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.
:Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.
:The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).
:I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]].

::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.
:::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.
:::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.
:::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.
:::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

:::A small selection:
:::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)
:::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)
:::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)
:::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)
:::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

: Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it.
:* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying "in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture", but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days.
:* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire", but the alleged "global warming" is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise?
:* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's "that shall burn as an oven". Or would you like to claim that we're in the "pre-heat" stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

== Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==

In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1).

Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)

:I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.

:First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.

:So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not "delay" the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO2, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO2. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.

:I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO2 absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO2 only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO2 absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!

:I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute.
::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say "delay" because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!
:::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T<~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest "trapped"). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]

:::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the "doubling CO2 will cause X" mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating.

::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT)

:::::First of all, how can you say "the models aren't built on first principles" if you've "never seen [any published] models?" (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.

:::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)

:*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)
::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a "buzzword," even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]
:::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Article is Thin ==

Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system.

== PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==

This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?

Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.

I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.

In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....

Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add.

Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.

Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?

Jon Moseley

== URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==

I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley

*You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in "My Preferences" for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)

== "Politician Al Gore" ==
I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a "politician". He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called "the Vice President of the United States of America". Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using "politician" lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral "activist" would be proper.

Oh, come on. You people can't even get the facts right! The earth's temperature has risen by one degree CENTIGRADE since the turn of the 20th century. The claim that solar variations are ridiculous, since the sun's rays vary in 12 year cycles, up and down. Also, the solar radiation theory has been discarded by all major scientific communities. The fact is, even though I may be a Republican (which means I believe in small government, fighting terrorists, and preserving the security of this great nation, which means not spewing pollution into our air, even if it does not cause 'Global Warming') Climate Change is real, and denying it will not solve the problem. It is not a liberal fantasy.

Isaac Block

Talk:Science of global warming

2007-11-19T23:16:53Z

Moderatedemocrat:

Talk:World War II

2007-11-19T23:06:45Z

Moderatedemocrat:

==Discussion==

This needs a huge amount of work. It is rather euro-centris at present, I would many American contributors would be able to add discussion on the war in Asia [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 11:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Didn't World War II begin when Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/39? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well, not quite, it actually pretty much started when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Austria. Still, huge mistake. I'll fix it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::Wrong war. WWI was started with the death of Ferdinand. It was September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Polan that started WWII.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Oops. yeah, your right. Haha, silly me. Still, we do need to fix the main article.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I did a small fix that should work for now, but anything that you or anyone can add to it, please do.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::If you want to get hyper-technical, you could make the case it started with the Japanese invasion of China. But I don't think we need to get that in-depth, at least for now.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It says: "relatively weak United Kingdom." This would be incorrect, considering it still owned the world's largest empire, ever, at or around its peak at the start of the war.
:Britain had a large Empire, but like a modern Monarch it had little power. Canada's alligence ot Britain is to their credit as they could have stayed out. India and Australia had little choice as they were involved by the war in Asia. Most of the remaining British possessions were in southern and eastern Africa will less direct involvement.

Two mistakes in the above paragraph. (1) The so-called Empire: the dominions, ie Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand were completely free to make their own decisions by 1939. (Statute of Westminster 1931, says somthe Axis by 1940, and heavily engaged against Rommel, and in Greece and Crete. Aust. forces were recalled to fight Japan, much against Churchill's wishes. I also know that East African troops were involved in 1940-42) (Can't cite that one...my mother nursed them, though, and had anecdotes). Japan did not attack south east Asia, Dutch East Indies etc. until AFTER Pearl Harbor.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:45, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

== Where are the sources? ==

Where are the sources? This article needs sources and is part of our article improvement drive listed on the main page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Overhaul needed==
This article needs an overhaul, and my suggestion would be to separate it into sections according to year, similar to my [[American Civil War]] series of articles. In short, I would gut this one, rename it "World War II: Prelude in Europe", then go into detail about the conditions which led to that war, and follow it by "World War II: Europe, 1940"; "1941", etc, with a separate series of articles concerning the Pacific Theater. It would be more than a dozen separate articles, which would take a lot of time, but it would be worth it in the end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Idea?==
I think the article could be improved if World War II had a symbol of some sort like the [[American Civil War]] has. Just an idea. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 15:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Britain staying in the war ==
I added a fact tag on the following line:
<blockquote>
Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard
</blockquote>

I don't believe that there was ever any expectation that Britain would not remain in the war. Hitler and his generals understood that Fortress Europa would not be tenable without the conquering of Britain. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to see a cite about it.
*I will have to come back to you on this. However, there were incidents such as soldiers discarding their guns once evacuated from Dunkirk , they thought the war was over and they had lost. Equally, one of Churchills famous speeches at this time was telling people that the war was still on, as it was far from clear. [[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 00:49, August 2007 (EDT)

*Please sign all posts, and I reverted your last change due to misleading edit notes. If you state you add a citation, do so, but do not make other key changes in the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, forgot to sign the talk page. I thought that I did comment on each of the changes to show what each was. I also added a citation to the change of Alliance to Non-Aggression pact, which it certainly was. Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance. I will unwatch the article and leave it alone, as apparently making good edits and adding citations are less important than signing a talk page post (which I was correcting as you undid my edits, btw.) [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 12:59, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:*''Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance.''
::*Huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*Goodbye. You "thought" nothing of the sort, as your last edit clearly shows many changes, not just the addition of citation. Your argumentative tone here, clearly reveals your intentions. Troll somewhere else. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

The Battle of Britain and The Blitz were sort of contemporanious although the Blitz lasted longer.Put simply; the B of B was the attempt by Germany to wipe out the RAF, so opening the way for invasion. The Blitz was the saturation bombing of London and other major cities. They overlapped. Sept 7 1940 is the day Goering assumed command and ordered the switch from airfields to cities. Yet the B of B went through October. The Blitz never refers to Allied raids into Germany. (I'm scanning Churchill's memoirs here.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:55, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
*''opening the way for invasion''
::yes and no; Germany simply never had enough ships to put the size of a force needed across the Channel, neither was it in the budget to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:The English would know that. They were aware of "Sea Lion" and the build up across the channel; and Whilst Churchill stated his increasing confidence that an invasion would not take place, or would not then succeed; if the RAF had been wiped out there was real danger of it being on the cards. The opening sentence of Chapter XVI "The Battle of Britain" in Volume II is: "Our fate now depended upon victory in the air." [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, this is all the "coulda woulda shoulda" school of historiography. In the final analysis, it was obvious when Hitler allowed the Brits to escape at Dunkirk he had no intention of ever invading England with land forces; what sense did it make to allow them to escape, when they had their back to the wall on the shores of Dunkirk, only to go fight them again on their home turf? If the Germans had destroyed the British forces on the beaches of Dunkirk, or captured them all, yes, then an invasion of Britain with limited manpower was possible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:31, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Good morning. Yep...Hitler hesitated. That's been chewed over many times by people infinitely more knowledgable and better recourced than I am. And smarter. Hitler did beeall for six weeks after Dunkirk. He didn't want to invade. He hoped the Brits would yield. He gave them every chance to. Yet, on July 16 he issued "War Directive No. 16", ordering preparations for an invasion - in effect initiating 'Sealion". He still hoped that Britain would sorta, um, disappear. The effectiveness of the RAF over Dunkirk had given everyone pause for thought. Was Sealion and all the memos and diary entries and directives some gigantic feint, or hoax? Within weeks the Germans were grabbing barges from as far away as the eastern Baltic and anything else that could carry troops across the Channel. I think he had to have a go. As much as he could hope that America would stay away, he realised that the "Bases for Destroyers" deal would strengthen Britain and sooner or later America would become an active belligerant. And at the same time he was desperately working towards a "Tripartite Agreement" (Germany, Italy, Japan) to keep the US looking over its shoulder, and working just as hard at persuading Spain to join up. (But let's not mention Portugal -:)) Yeah. Hitler was ambivalent about an invasion, but all the preparations were put in train, and also....why would he have unleashed such a storm at the RAF and the Channel installations if no invasion was planned. I can see a bit of both sides min this. Maybe i'm a shoulda woulda shoulda sorta bloke. I like the "on the other hand" view of history.(Oh and one more thing. My mother was in a medical unit in the BEF and was strafed more than once on the way to the coast. She was taken off with the last of the wounded a few days (I think) before the final evacuation. Two or three weeks later she was at the set up of one of those great manors as a hospital for the sick relatives of VIPs. A month after it was operational it was suddenly abandoned, and everyone ended up in the Midlands somewhere. News of an impending invasion? Or just of an impending air war? Probably neither, but who knows. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Continuing the "coulda woulda shoulda" school, Sea Lion was all bluff, and diversionary. Hitler overruled the Generals who recommended finishing off the British forces at Dunkirk, cause otherwise it might turn around bite you in the butt, which it eventually did. But Hitler was fighting a propaganda campaign; he knew Britain did not want War, the people did not, Chamberlain didn't, nor the Duke of Windsor. To Hitler at this point, the skirmish was a "frisch, froelich krieg" with Britain, and the two would eventually see eye-to-eye on Soviet Bolshevism. He already had the continental French manpower which made up the SS Charlemagne Division, among others, working for him. Hitler did not anticipate the stubbornness of a Churchill, who would risk [[total war]] to the finish. Until the day Hitler went down in the basement and blew his brains out, he never understood why Britain opposed him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:RobS|RobS]], where did you get the expression "frisch, froelich krieg" from? You used more than once, but I have never encountered this phrase anywhere else before. It reminds me of the mood at the beginning of WWI, but not exactly of WWII. If you have a source for this expression, I'd be more than grateful. [[User:Order]] June 7.

:::I think I first heard it regarding the regarding the [[Battle of Sadowa]], probably in Gordon Craig's, ''Politics of the Prussian Army'', a book I'd recommend to any serious student. And even if I recall correctly, Craig says the term or idea was fluent in Prussian military thinking prior to Sadowa. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Correct spelling should be "frisch, froehliche krieg", also "frisch-froehliche krieg" is found in some search engines. [http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=%22frisch%2C+froehliche+krieg%22][http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=5163652657573392149] This may be a good subject for an entry. Also [[sabre rattling]] is another I'd like to do; the newspeak use of it doesn't have a clue what its original meaning is, and is distorted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Order, you are absolutely correct. Look at this babelfish translation, for example, from a German language article entitled "First World War",
:::*''On 28 June 1914 Franz Ferdinand and its wife were shot in Sarajewo by conspirator hand. That became the trip the First World War. I do not want to describe its process here, but to mention nevertheless three things: 1. It did not become the dreamed of '''short, freshmerry war''''' [http://www.maffersdorf.de/chronik/band_05/maffersdorf_anhang_12.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You may well be right. I would have to do a lot of research to catch up with your knowledge. The thing is though...what should a Consevapedia article give as the causes of or the reson for The Battle of Britain? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:52, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Causes? Whew...I'm still just shooting from the hip off the top of my head decades old knowledge I haven't studied in awhile...I'd say Germany's attempt to bring England under submisssion after England decided to continue the war under Churchill, but I'd need good sources to explain that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I am almost tending towards the scenario wherein Hitler says to the Luftwaffe: "OK then, have a go. If you're successful we may invade. I'll get things going in case". One thing I saw was something about him giving them 8 days to wipe out the RAF. (Almost a "famous last words thing", eh?)I think later the Luftwaffe was thinking two weeks to a month. And certainly he would have considered that id he was successful and the RAF was destroyed, he would not have to invade....England may have yielded then. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:I think the whole matter of Hitler wanting to invade England (or for that matter the United States) is exaggerated. It never was in the cards. And the events at Dunkirk prove it. Had Hitler taken prisoners at Dunkirk rather than allow them to escape, he could have launched an invasion using basically a naval flotilla similiar to the one the Brits used to escape Dunkirk, to occupy Britain, probaly with less less 80,000 men. But the truth is, they simply did not have enough ships to mount a Normandy style invasion, under fire, against Britain. Hitler viewed it as a propaganda war, and always fully expected Britain to join the alliance against the Soviet Union, which in fact it did, after Hitler's death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. Sure, there was no way the Staes were under threat from him. But Britain? I don't know. I don't know enough, and it would take me too long to read up sufficiently. Some where between the two of us is the answer. Gotta go.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler viewed it basically as a propoaganda campaign. He wrote a whole chapter on propaganda in ''Mien Kampf'', marvelling and admiring how effective British propaganda, without bullets, was in WWI. This was given high priority in Nazi Germany, Goebbels Ministry was built on, and modeled after British propaganda (state run BBC). Hitler could never understand why Britain didn't make common-cause with Germany against the USSR, always couldn't understand what they expected to gain. Many Brits as well, never thought the War was worth the effort expended, during it and after. And Britain had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to loose. In fact, while being a victor, they lost everything, i.e. the British Empire.

:This brings us to a discusssion of the [[Arsenal of Democracy]], and Churchill's "give us the tools, and we'll finish the job" speech. In 1940, the US was adament about remaining neutral. The Arsenal of Democracy, for US domestic consumption, meant the US would get invovled in building weapons, but not supply manpower, i.e. bloodshed. This was extremely controversial at the time. Churchill's speech was intended as a reassurance, if the US would amend the Neutrality Act, and allow Lend Lease shipments, Britain had the manpower (which survived Dunkirk), but only needed the tools (weapons) from American factories (the Arsenal of Democracy). This was the propaganda sold to the American public, that the US could take sides, arm Britain, yet not expend any manpower or bloodshed of its own. Hitler evidently believed it as well, never thinking American troops would assemble in Great Britain to invade someday. Or if it did happen, it would take years and years to build the ships, ship the material and manpower, and finally mount an invasion.

:That is why, in 1940, Hitler let the British Expediationary Force slip away at Dunkirk. To him, it was only a "brisk, jolly little war", like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. And Total War against Britain was not in his mind. Total War against the USSR was, but he would have liked to have Britain as an ally in such a venture. And whether or not Britain was an ally, didn't disrupt his plans. And truth be told, Hitler always admired and respected Great Britain, but could not figure out why they would destroy themselves and their Empire to gain nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Portugal was neutral but benevolent TOWARDS Britain. Indeed, the oldest extant defence treaty is that between Portugal and England, made in 1373. At about the same time that America declared a demarcation line between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres with US patrolling the Western and keeping GB aware of all Axis sightings, (April 1941) Britain was organising, in response to requests from Portugal, a takeover of the Azores, with further plans for Cape Verde Islands and Grande Canary; all Portuguese territories that neither Portugal nor Britain wanted to fall into German hands. (Refer SBS World Book (Portugal) and Churchill’s War Memoirs: Vols. II & III.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
*Sure. Everybody was on the winning side once the War was over, even the neutrals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Um...in 1943 Churchill himself visited Lisbon...not a place to be if it is pro-German. That is well over a year before the war finished and before an Allied Victory was assured. Before the Americans came in, Portugal had given the Allies "use" of their Atlantic islands. I am not sure what you are getting at. These pro-English gestures, and others were not "once the war was over".

:::Portugal was neutral and the seat of much espionage and disinformation activity. When the Goebbels wished to transmit a line of disinformation, Lisbon newspapers were always targerted knowing the Allies would pick it up in hopes it had some degree of credibility. Portugal figured prominently into the "Double Cross" cross system. The famous case how British intelligence handcuffed a briefcase with supposed invasion plans to a corpse and let it wash up on shore in Portugal, knowing the disinformation would get back to Berlin after Portugeese investigators examined the corpse is well known. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. And the Actor Leslie Howard died when a plane was targeted by the Germans between Lisbon and London as Churchill may have been on board. Lisborn was walking a fine line between London, Berlin, and Madrid. And many in authority were pro-Nazi. But the Portuguese Gov't did offer Britain the use of the Azores - of immense strategic value like Iceland. If you wish to revert my removal, do so, but surely a "pro-Axis leadership would preferred Germany to have their Atlantic territories, instead of Britain. Now, its not yet 5 am and the coffee has stopped gurgling. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes that's all true. I don't recall all the details how the Allies got to use the Azores, but after Stalingrad, virtually everybody in the know knew which way the wind was blowing and who was going to win anyway. Besides, the Germans never had sufficient naval forces to hold the Azores, the only interesting question would be was it before Stalingrad or after? and if before, what impact did it have in facilitating transport of troops & material for the North African campaign, and to what extend was Allied occupation of the Azores visiable (by visable, I mean that the Germans ''knew'' it was done with the consent of Protugal, OTOH, was it forcible in that Portugal was powerless to prevent it) so the Germans basically knew Portugal was abetting the Allies.

:In ''Goebbels Diaries'', speaking from memory, I recall one entry where Goebbels was all aflutter becuase some Lisbon newspaper picked up some disinformation they were trying to get Britain to act upon, but I don't recall the specifics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

You are no doubt right again. I am looking at books I have hardly opened in 40 years! In a memo from "Prime Minister to Foreign Office" dated 11 Aug. '41, discussing talks with Roosevelt on the Atlantic Charter he writes (inter alia): ".....he (Roosevelt) would be willing to ''come to the aid of Portugal'' in the Atlantic islands...." (My italics) This implies Portugal desiring that aid. This is after the invasion of Russia but well before the rot set in.

Can we agree to differ on this. You seem to be anti Portugal. I suppose I am trying to balance that. Certainly, many Portuguese, including Government, were pro-German. Many weren't. We can go back and forth for ever. As I said; if you want to revert.....[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:08, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:I'm just carrying this all off the top of my head, and have never really delved into the intricacies of Portugese neutrality. Certainly it was a popular vacation spot for continental Europeans during the Nazi occupations elsewhere to get away from the War, and more easily accessible than it was for Allies. Portugal I would assume was incapable of militarily defending the Azores if the Allies really needed it for the North African campaign, so they may have allowed the Allies to pretend to take it forcibly, while at the same time claiming neutrality. I rather doubt there was a back room agreement to allow it before the disaster for the Germans at Stalingrad, but it is plausible, I suppose. OTOH, the Germans certainly would have wanted Portugal for U-boat operations, but they saw certain advantages to respect neutrality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes, yes and , um, yes. I am trying to finish an article on King John before the day gets going and family takes over. (We all know ''he'' was a villain.) All I know is Churchill considered Portugal onside. As early as 1940 he was discussing Portugal as, if not exactly a friend but at least not an enemy. Portugal were also incapable of defending their Atlantic islands if Germany decided to invade - which they planned to do, but I don't know when. AhHA! Same letter as above (Aug. '41)says: "The President has received a letter from Dr. Salazar, in which it is made clear that he is looking to the Azores as a place of retreat for himself and his Government in the event of German aggression against Portugal, and that his country's age-long alliance with England leads him to count on British protection during his enforced stay on these islands". That can be considered in various ways, I suppose.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::When I was looking for some information about the German opinions about Britain staying in the war, I found an interesting discussion about a book by Lidell Hart. He interviewed some of the German generals at Nurenburg. Several of them said that Hitler held the Germans back at Dunkirk, when the generals wanted to move in and finish off the Expeditionary Force. According to them, Hitler thought that, with France defeated, Britain might be willing to join with Germany against Russia. While these were comments made well after the fact, BLH points out that when awaiting trial, it would make more sense for the generals to put themselves in the position of saving the British troops, instead of giving that role to Hitler. I know that before the war broke out, there was a small group of Britons that supported the idea of fascism being preferable to communism. I wonder if Hitler, who clearly had agents in pre-war Britain, made a complete misread of this position.
:::As a side note, there were Nazi sympatheizers in high circles in Britain. Hitler himself had strong connections in Britain. This would certainly make sense. Also, in Hitler's way of thinking, way would Britain oppose Italy, Germany, USSR etc.... it would be and it would be easier to control the country quietly (as France or Denmark) rather than undertake an very awkward and possibly difficult (that was never test, of course) to control nation.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 10 August 2007

::::I hate to cite WP, but read their entry on Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (later the Duke of Windsor). This is why Rudolf Hess flew to England. Many Nazi's bosses thought they had enough influence in Britian to keep them out from continuing the war. As you cited above about Dunkirk, you're not really addressing the major historical question around that event: Why did Hitler allow them to escape? Why did Hitler counter the advise of his General's ''an not'' take them '''all''' POW's? Hitler never could understand in his mind why Britain took sides with the Soviet against the united powers of Western Europe. Contrary to what is taught in the history books, under the Third Riech, every single nation of Western Europe contributed ''both'' its manpower, and its defense budgets to fighting Soviet Communism ''in the Soviet Union''. When the War ended of course, we know what happened; they all blamed the Germans and claimed they were all part of the Resistance. The facts are, France contributed more to the Nazi war effort from 1940-1944 than it did to defend itself from 1939-1940. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::I do not have the BLH book mentioned, and I don't want to add something to an article based on a second hand quote, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 07:35, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liddell Hart is ''the'' primary source we should be using for this article. And yes, Hitler never reconciled in his mind why the English, racial cousins, would not join in the fight against Soviet Bolshevism. (In fact, there was an SS legion made up of Englishmen, the Legion of St. George, had about 50 English speaking Brits who fought in Russsia).

:::One of the interesting things in Liddell Hart's book regards the occupation of Norway; Hart points out how the charge of "waging aggressive war" against Norway at Nuremberg was hypocritical, given that Britain at the exact moment itself was moving to occupy an indenpendent, neutral country, only the Germans got there first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::::...and given the choice the Brits would have been welcomed with open arms, I would suggest. Britain did take over the Faroes and, whilst they took their guns with them, they were not unwelcome (as opposed to places where the British stayed longer...)[[user:stevendavy|Stevendavy]]

== Immediate Causes ==

"The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China, the United States..."

What? How is the Japanese attack on the United States an immediate cause of WWII? Is this some kind of joke?

==Outline==
Perhpas we need to develop a larger outline for the war. What appears here, is larely what can be referred to as the [[untied front]], i.e. it only discusses the united front against axis powers, and moreless ignores the Soviet invasions of Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, etc. No discussion of the Soviet-Japanese front, Moaist and Comintern activities in the Far East, etc.

The [[united front]], as far as the Anglo-American schools go, date the war from the beginning of Great Britian's involvement, Sept. 3, 1939, although the United States was not an active belligerent power in either Europe or the Far East. So, what I would propose is an opening section which briefly lists all the various major belligerencies that occurred since the war to end all wars, i.e. WWI & the failed Treaty of Versailles. This would be various Japanese wars, what we have finally come to call the Second Sino-Japanese War, Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, Anschluss, Treaty of Munich, Communazi pact, Finnish War, etc. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:24, 23 August 2007 (EDT)