Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2014-01-28T03:01:46Z

Muteswan:

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

This is a message to Conservapedia people who edit current news, and if this is the wrong place to put it, can someone move it to the right place, please? The subject is: I propose that Conservapedia report and comment a telling current event: When two children, standing next to Pope Francis released two white doves, accenting Pope's plea for peace, two other birds: a crow and a seagull came from nowhere and attacked the doves in flight, probably killing one of them. Crowds of people witnessed that. The enclosed picture of the black crow tearing apart the white dove conveying the peace message makes one think: Are we sure it was just a crow, and not an envoy of The One Who Hates Peace - the Satan? Here is the picture:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/27/angry-birds-popes-peace-doves-attacked/comment-page-5/
Please look at picture #4 there.

I've put together a blog that applies tenets of the Christian faith to everyday life and our responsibility as citizens. I add a new article every few days and I would love it if you guys could start following and get people to read this. Remember James 2:17- "faith without works is dead." We have to start teaching those who come after us. Here is the link- I don't know how to get this in the News Feed on the main page.

I am an active military officer in my 20s and a combat veteran. It serves me best to keep my identity to myself for now. Below is the link.

http://www.defendingamericanvalues.blogspot.com

== Insults ==

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

''Hi,

''I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

''http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

''Excerpt: '''I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!'''

''I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

''It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read [[Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]], where User:Conservative asks: '''''By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite?''''' I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to ''trim'' my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

::AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on this slope] and has a [http://creation.com/truth-decay significant case of "truth decay".] If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:*The EKKW is one of the more conservative ''Landeskirchen'' of the EKD.
:*Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of ''cuius regio eius religio''. So under the tent of a ''Landeskirche'' you will find various, often struggling opinions.
:*'''All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks.''' You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
:*I'm not the first one to be treated this way - [[User:MaxFletcher]] was insulted similarly.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various ''Landeskirchen'' would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST)

*User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: ''I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.''
*Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters ('''''I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. '''''), while admitting that you have not much information ('''''I did do some cursory investigation ''''') is truly amazing!
*A statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by ''all'' Christians. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4fa466c4c219ef7377db25265f553ab7-183.html]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen.
::::@ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can '''not''' be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks.
::::AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: ''Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd.'' Herzlich --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a '''family-friendly encyclopediay'''. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:
*they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia
*there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing
*frankly, the ''Popular articles at Conservapedia '' aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker!
*finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?
It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ''ignored/trimmed''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

: Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia.
: If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]], [[evolution]], [[homosexuality]] and [[liberal]] articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:: Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles. I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that ''my'' [[catholic church|church]] has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal? I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]''' in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my '''"liberal Christianity" "pastor" '''[is]''' a lesbian or sodomite''' insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means [[User:Aschlafly]]) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as [[User:Conservative]] has observed so smugly.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*''August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. '' Show me some examples ''Bible believing churches'' in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in ''spiritual decline''. I assume that your ''Bible believing churches'' are as energetic as the ''Question Evolution campaign!''.
:*''Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation.'' It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it.
:*''I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate.'' Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis.
:*''When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline.'' Another hidden attack against my church - and me...
:*''The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope].'' You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice.
:*''I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology.'' Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult.
:*''But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. '' Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis.
:*''By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. '' I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/106#Conundrum|here]]
:*''Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return.'' I got ''mad'' because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the ''debate'' and the ''debaters'' - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it.
:*''I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten.'' Sorry, not my sport.
:*''I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. '' *LOL*

:So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on ''Young Earth Creationism'' and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW.

:Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look [http://questionevolutionde.blogspot.com/ HERE], it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I ''fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:
*''Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! '' and
*''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''
I think that these ideas don't help to have a ''fruitful dialog''. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning ''Question Evolution!'', though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign#Who_is_this_campaign_aimed_to_.3F|here]], this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the ''Hornberger Schiessen''.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/ unique picture] relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3676931503/in/photostream HERE] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3666454904/in/photostream HERE]. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*'' Am I missing something? '' Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement ''August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' is just not true.
:*''Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany?'' And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small.
:*''If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing.'' One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your ''guesses'' as something to bolster your ''convictions''!
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST)

*''It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach.'' Indeed.
*''I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though.'' Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians?
*''Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much.'' Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment.
*''Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case.'' Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses.
*''However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance.'' A ''non sequitur''. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his ''pretended'' belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions ==

User:Conservative deleted [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] and stated as the reason for this action ‎''if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!''

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (''I'll take my ball and go home''), therefore I created [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]. The debate is important, as the '''15 questions''' are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is '''allowed''' to answer...--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 block of Rudrick Boucher ==

[[User:RudrickBoucher]] was blocked for '''two years''' for breaking the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARudrickBoucher 90/10 rule]. As he is a first-time offender this seems to be an extraordinary long ban - and therefore smacks of ideological censorship.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:15, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:I do find the 90/10 rule a bit of a strange one. Considering how so many articles here are protected, in many cases for no apparent reason it seems, and how the [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]] encourages a cautious approach to editing with an emphasis on discussing changes first, the best contributor could be someone who actually violates the 90/10 rule, because they are careful to ensure there is agreement about the change they want to make or simply that they can't edit the article due to protection. Then of course there are the debate pages which are clearly venues for people to talk about issues. The ratio of talk page to article edits alone is a very poor measure of the value of a contributor. It does seem one rule that can easily be abused. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Page protect requests==
What is the point of getting a page protect request granted from the site owner so editors can work collaboratively on a sub page, only to have the site owners action undone and opening of a key article to vandals and revert wars? Does the unlocking sysop's action encourage collaborative editing by good faith users, forcing them to waste their time that could be used contributing content, rather than revert warring with trolls? What recourse do good faith editors have for sysop actions from sysops that are incommunicado? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 28 January 2012 (EST)

== We should be nicer ==

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

1 John 3:11-15 NIV
11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Proverbs 15:1
1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-[[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]] 10:23, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Libertarians ==

I noticed that the rules of conservapedia state the libertarian views are considered "conservative". Presumably, this would apply to economic issues only as their views on social issues are typically quite liberal. I don't have a problem with this, seeing as I am a libertarian myself and have essentially agreed to disagree on the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff. But, since we allow libertarians, who are fiscally conservative/socially liberal, would we allow groups like Peronists, who are fiscally liberal/socially conservative? I forget the link where I saw libertarians specifically mentioned as allowed, but I'll try to find it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:33, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

==Mediawiki features==
Wondering if these features are implemented here:
*<nowiki><categorytree></nowiki>
*page transclusion, e.g.:
:{{Wikiproject:Ex-gay movement/Members}}
Thanks, [[User:LJoseph|LJoseph]] 00:44, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting well-written response ==

Having recently found the wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religiosity_and_intelligence Religiosity and intelligence], I found myself in the strange situation of not knowing where to look for another perspective. Clearly they misinterpret the results of the few studies cited, but it would be very interesting to see if any studies provide different results or at least discuss the accuracy of the cited studies. It would be great to see an article [[Religiosity and intelligence]] on Conservapedia to provide a rebuttal to the other wiki. -- [[User:Jehoshaphat|Jehoshaphat]] 00:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:Clearly there is a link. Newton was a devout Christian and look what he achieved!! Whether the link is causative or merely correlative is hard to say. On the one hand God is likely to look with favour on his adherents, but on the other it may be that intelligent people are just more likely to believe in God. I am not aware of any biblical references that will help you with your research, but others may be able to assist. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 07:14, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:::see: [[Atheism and intelligence]]. I hope that helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:37, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

== Proposed update to Mediawiki 1.18.x ==

This is a redux of User:Conservative's suggestion to update Mediawiki to version 1.18.x (where x is any release version that is stable). His rational for this is to allow support for Extension:Wikilog (a wiki blogging device), and to update the php script used to create titles (so AT&T shows up instead of AT%20T in search, etc).

===Pros===
*I agree, as it will also allow for the installation of various extensions, that I find are incredibly useful on a wiki community, such as [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Nx/vandalbrake VandalBrake] (a extension that slows down vandals significantly, but still lets them lodge complaints, etc [The original link is apparently blacklisted: rhymes with nationalpikcy]), the WIGO extension, by Nx again, and even core reversion deletion. The update itself is a simple, clicking proccess that ASchafly could spend a matter of minutes configuring.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:10, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
*[https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.16 MediaWiki 1.16] is more than three years old and therefore technical support is no longer available from the Wikimedia Foundation. The software probably has security weaknesses that hackers could be attempting to exploit as we speak in an effort to use Conservapedia's servers as a vector for black hat activities. Websites with security vulnerabilities are a key part of the illicit global infrastructure of malware, spam and phishing. Bot herders crawl the web looking for websites with security vulnerabilities, and then use the vulnerabilities to hijack them. The hijacked website will distribute malware (viruses) to visitors, either via browser vulnerabilities or overtly by social engineering. The downloaded malware turns the client's computer into a "zombie" that is part of a global network of organized crime aimed at stealing bank account details, sending spam, and extorting money from websites with denial-of-service threats. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 11:02, 6 January 2014 (EST)

===Cons===

===Vote===
This is not open for voting yet 

== question ==

I'm pretty sure that on wikipedia there is the ability to see the number of page views, does this website allow you to do anything similar? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:59, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:Yes. Please look at the very bottom of each page in the white "margin". Also please look at [[Special:PopularPages]], which gives a sorted list. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:05, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
==Editor retention==
Do we have any statistics on editor retention? I know that the [[Special:Statistics]] page says that 719 people have edited in the past 91 days, but I suspect that this includes spammers and sockpuppets who are promptly blocked. What is the current size of our editor corps? What can we do to retain more editors or to recognize and reward editors for their service?

Wikipedia has a "Wikimania" conference. Has CP considered a face-to-face event to encourage comraderie among our volunteers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)
==Main Page proposal==
Currently only two editors control most of the content for the main page. Rather than promote the great content of Conservapedia, the main page promotes off-wiki content. Obvious suggestions, such as noting the passing of Senator [[Daniel Inouye]], do not receive serious consideration. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/119#Main_Page_Right Other proposals have been ignored.] I have just proposed on [[Talk:Main Page]] that we establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)
: Please leave your comments [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Formal_Proposal_to_Establish_a_Main_Page_Committee here.] Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:14, 20 December 2012 (EST)

== Conservative Hypocrisy (Please read FULLY before judging/deleting/blocking ==
I know I'm new here and that my opinions have already run counter to a few of the more senior users here; however I'd like to reiterate how much I respect the work you're doing and my desire to help make this site a respected alternative to wikipedia. Now, onto the point of this post.
One of the biggest and most frequent complaints I've seen on this site in my time here, first just as a read and now as an editor, seems to have been the lack of a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. Now, I know that this has been a very unpopular topic, but I also think it's a large enough issue to require addressing if we want to be taken seriously by the center/undecided population in the political, social and religious aspects of society. The true conservatives already agree with what is being presented on this site and will no matter what, we need to gain acceptance from those who are not already on our side in order to expand.
Now, does gaining that acceptance mean we have to weaken our stances or compromise our beliefs? Not in the least. I merely suggest that it means we need to be honest and open about all of the truth, not just the parts we like.
So, if anyone is still reading with an open mind at this point, here my suggestion for a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. We already have pages on [[RINO]]s, [[PLINO]]s and [[XINO]]s as well as personal biography pages on public figures who claim to be conservative while demonstrating the complete opposite through their actions. Like it or not, these are all examples (to my understanding of the definition of the word hypocrisy) of [[Conservative Hypocrisy]].
As far as I can tell, I'm going about making this suggestion in the right way and in the right place, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on wiki-etiquette, so please feel free to move it to the proper place and let me know if I've made a mistake. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear some feedback in the near future, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:19, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
::I find it very hard to believe that no one has any opinion on this so I'm assuming it just got missed... I'll give it 24 more hours and if there's still no objection or comment I'm going to start working on drafting a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page according to the outline I described above. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 23:18, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
:::You can write a page concerning the abandonment of conservative principles by some, but the answer is no for a "conservative hypocrisy" page. This was attempted by trolls and thugs several years ago when they tried to force their way on the site, and it won't be allowed now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::I think you missed my point while actually making my point for me at the same time... I haven't been here long, yet I've already seen the trolls and thugs repeatedly bring it up and attempt vandalization through the fact that the page doesn't exist. If we make the page, present the facts and admit while that conservatives as a whole are not perfect, we are still much better than the alternatives, we take that power away from them. Please reread my initial post, take some time to contemplate 1 John 1:10 and/or Romans 3:23 and then if you still believe we should not publicly admit the shortcomings of some of our conservative brothers and sisters in order to make this site a more accepted and viable alternative to wikipedia, then I'll drop the subject. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::The answer is still no. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for being open minded enough to give my suggestion a full 17 minutes and 5 words worth of your time. As promised, I won't bring it up again. Sincerely, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 10:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::What about "[[pseudoconservative hypocrisy]]"? Could that work? Every movement has pseudobelievers who infiltrate to spread a pernicious doctrine; this is why so much of the text of Acts and the letters of the New Testament are devoted to warning of false teachers entering the church. The word "[[antichrist]]" in Greek is "pseudokhristos" or "false Messiah". It happens in political movements too. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:32, 6 January 2014 (EST)
::::That would work, provided it is demonstrated that 1) the individual involved claimed to be conservative; 2) it is proven that he lied about being conservative and/or willfully abandoned conservative principles. A lot of RINOs are like that. The term "pseudoconservative" would have to be clearly stated in the first paragraph as to what it means. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:16, 6 January 2014 (EST)
:::::The first step is to establish what [[precision|precisely]] it means to be a conservative. Then we can more productively attempt to assess whether a particular person's behavior has fallen short of that mark or not. Consider, for example, George W. Bush. People say that he wasn't very fiscally conservative, but how fiscally conservative would he have to be to not count as a hypocrite? What numbers would have to appear in a budget in order for us to conclude that the person responsible is a true conservative, and how much of a deviation from those numbers would it take to make a person qualify for the pseudoconservative category? Unless we have some way to settle such issues objectively, we are setting ourselves up for endless arguments that go nowhere, or else are settled by some arbitrary fiat. It's not like a private sector contract, in which the numbers are spelled out beforehand, and we can definitively say whether a party breached the contract.

:::::This matter is made even more touchy by the fact that leftists and other political opponents of conservatives rejoice to see infighting amongst conservatives about who are the true and who are the false conservatives. They like to see conservative resources expended uselessly on divisive conflicts that breed bitterness and eventual attrition within the ranks. So in trying to debate whether a particular conservative is a hypocrite, we will have to simultaneously deal with people's fears that we're playing right into the leftists' hands by even engaging in that discussion. Before we get started, I think we need to be aware of all the barriers to productive conversation and decide whether we can or should commit ourselves to overcoming them, or else it's better just to not even get underway on this effort.

:::::Incidentally, the particular manifestation of conservative infighting that anti-conservatives love above all others is when conservatives falsely accuse one another of not being true conservatives and purge the innocent from their ranks. This damages the movement by (1) directly diminishing its manpower through the loss of the purged members, (2) causing more infighting that results in more attrition (whether by (a) resignation of members who are disgusted by either (I) the way the fighting is going or (II) the fact that so much attention is devoted to fighting in general; or by (b) further purges, when one faction or another gets the upper hand over the other and expels its adversaries), and (4) detracting from the movement's reputation for fairness, reasonableness and effectiveness, which hinders recruitment.

:::::One is reminded of [[2 Samuel]] 11-12. [[David]] and [[Uriah]] were supposed to be on the same side, but David turned on him without good cause. In 2 Samuel 12:14, [[Nathan]] points out, "by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme". The enemies of conservatism watch what we do for any sign of illogic or factual inaccuracy, yearning to chortle over any error we might make. Worrying about it excessively can in fact induce more errors, due to the potential for self-consciousness to distract from the task at hand. Therefore, we can and should, of course, let the dogs bark and pay no heed to their yelping, knowing that ultimately, "with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." ([[1 Peter]] 2:15) I just point it out because the possibility often comes up in these debates. Creating an article like [[pseudoconservative hypocrisy]] is like [http://imgur.com/wGUTG code refactoring]; one wants to think through the likely consequences before venturing into that bathtub. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 09:37, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Moving / renaming pages ==

Please could someone explain how to rename pages on CP so as to preserve the editing history. I know it can be done on WP but I guess it isn't done the same way on CP. (I know it can be done on WP because I couldn't figure out how to do it on CP, so I looked up how to do it on WP, then I saw that their method doesn't apply to CP - a button is missing or something.) I want to do this because I've been studying British History at school and I want to change the names of pages about their Prime Ministers to those that people would recognise, e.g. Marquess of Rockingham instead of Charles Wentworth-Watson, Duke of Portland instead of William Cavendish-Bentinck, etc. This would make CP easier to use for studying British History. Thanks to anyone who can help me here. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 17:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
:Is any sysop monitoring this page? If so, please could you answer my question. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 20:35, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

==over 12 hours of not being able to edit==
I posted this problem last week elsewhere and never received a response, just as I received no response from the email I sent when it happened the week before that... So I guess I'll try it here. From 10am to 1030pm (Eastern Time) I was unable to edit any page on this site, including my own user and user:talk pages. It occurred suddenly while I was removing dead end pages and according to my "block records" I have never been blocked, yet this is at least the 4th time it has happened. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:56, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
:If there isn't a FAQ already with this question, it should be added. At night, the wiki is locked to editing. I would propose that instead, some other means of deterring vandalism be implemented. For example, edits could be throttled at night. People could be allowed to make, say, two edits every 30 minutes. This would limit the potential for vandalism; users in the Edit group would be able to keep up with reverting it without the need for a sysop to be around to block people. Another possibility is to give more users sysop rights and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Establishing_a_hierarchy_of_bureaucrats establish a hierarchy of bureaucrats] to keep them in check. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:28, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== Public notice to evolutionists - 6/1/2013 ==

The Sherman tank(s), also known as [[User: Conservative]] :), is/are not going to be bogged down in the talk page [http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/hedgerowbreakout.aspx hedgerows] fighting pointless, low priority battles with insincere, evolutionist posers who are too afraid to debate the creationist [[VivaYehshua]] (the biology major at a university) on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. See: [[VivaYehshua]].

I/we hear the pings of your sniper fire in the recent changes log of CP, but your rifle fire is having no effect! I/we are not bogged down!

Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionists-failed-to-overturn.html]
::VivaYehshua's ability to make evolutionists quake in their boots (especially Fergus Mason) is becoming more widely known.[http://templestream.xanga.com/771564827/top-problems-with-evolutionary-teaching-today/] :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

== QuestyCaptcha ==
I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:QuestyCaptcha works best with lower-profile wikis that don't have a determined base of vandals who would put in the effort to crack all the questions. That said, QuestyCaptcha would provide opportunities for some interesting [[shibboleth]]s. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:19, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason. VivaYehshua won hands down and effortlessly ==

Mr. Mason, anytime you want your head back, just agree to debate VivaYehshua and actually carry through with the debate this time. Unless of course, you are still a quivering bowl of jelly! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Mr DeMy*er, any time you want a book published ask me to write it for you, instead of some cretard loser. $2,000 plus tax and your "15 Questions" book will be done by the end of the month.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:56, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
: Haha, all the evolutionists I have ever met are like this, they run away from fights at every chance. [[User:RowanO|RowanO]] 11:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Rowan, I turned up for the debate and instantly got banned by another moderator. Ken tends to forget that little detail.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:58, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
It has been agreed that debating this person is not a reason for being blocked, I think your hatred is a valid reason for a block, you are a coward and a bully. I am seriously considering reporting user:Conservative to UK immigration and having him declared "Persona non Grata" in the UK--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 11:22, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Patmac, you are an endless source of amusement! How many people do you think go by the name of [[User: Conservative]] on their passports when entering the UK. :) Second, Fergus Mason agreed to debate VivaYehshua. Now all he has to do to remove his stain of intellectual weakness, cowardice and dishonor is carry through on his promise and debate VivaYehshua. Unless of course, Fergus is afraid of being soundly thrashed in a debate and having the debate widely distributed. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:15, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Patmac, are you going to get Scotland Yard on this case or are you going to report [[User: Conservative]] to Interpol for high crimes and misdemeanors instead? You are acting like a yappy, little dog that is all bark and no bite. Patmac, liberalism is rapidly heading towards financial bankruptcy in the West and will collapse under its own weight. It happened in the Soviet Union and it will happen to Western nations which ignore the lessons of Greece and what is starting to be played out in California. Empty threats by members of teetering ideologies are not impressive in the least. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Unsurprisingly patmac has been blocked user:c so he will not be able to respond. It's a shame really, I would have loved to hear the British Home Secretary's reply to any communication from him. I reckon I would have heard her laughing here where I live in the UK 40 miles from London, in fact I suspect you would have heard the laughing all the way over in the US. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:40, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::Patmac, I looked up and suddenly saw your signature turn red. I didn't ask Karajou to declare you "Persona non Grata". He did this on his own accord. I do find it to be a case of poetic justice though considering your empty threat to get me/us banned from the UK. For all you know, I/we could be in the UK right now eating fish and chips and washing it down with Mackeson Stout! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Nice try, Ken. I see you forgot to mention that Viva (who isn't a christian, by the way) is still banned from Shock's pathetic chatroom. That makes your "debate challenge" a farce, rendered all the more farcical by your cowardly refusal to debate me yourself. Here's me, willing to take time off from writing my latest book to debate you, and you're too gutless. You must really enjoy the company of those bunnies.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:54, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::User:C, considering the current debacle surrounding Patmac, I would suggest avoiding mention of him for the time being (especially given your highly provocative relationship with him)[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:01, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
Fergus, you don't know what you are talking about and I/we also don't believe you are being sincere.

First, trinitarian Messianic Jews like VivaYehshua, recognize that Jesus was God and the Savior of mankind. Also, in most forms of Messianic Judaism salvation is by God's grace (I am assuming many of them also believe that true faith will have works).

Second, in the past you claimed that VivaYehshua did not like the 15 questions for evolutionists. I/we talked to VivaYehshua and he does like the 15 questions for evolutionists. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c HERE] is a video of Shockofgod and VivaYehshua on the Question Evolution Campaign which includes the 15 questions for evolutionists. So why should I believe your claim that Viva has been banned from the Shockofgod's chatroom? I/we don't believe this. VivaYehshua is now attending a university for biology and he is working too. I/we think he is merely busier and in the chatroom less. Shockofgod is still reachable through (twitter, YouTube channel, blog) and so there is no reason why you can't get in contact with VivaYehshua and/or Shockofgod.

Fergus, just admit it. You agreed to debate VivaYehshua and then you cowardly backed down! I/we wouldn't even consider debating a cowardly and obscure evolutionist such as yourself until you keep your promise to debate VivaYehshua. First socks Fergus and then shoes! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:10, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::By the way Patmac, I/we know why you became so enraged and had your childish, little "I'll get you banned from the UK" temper tantrum. That cat that gets hit by the shoe yelps the loudest! You know that what I/we said about [[evolution|Darwinism]] and [[liberal Christianity]] are true. See: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] and [[Liberal Christianity and irrationalism]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:31, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

:Mackeson Stout!!? C'mon Cons; try and refer to what you know, not what you've had to search for. (And while I am at it - what has [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] got to do with the subject being discussed? Oh! I see. It's a bit of triumphalism creeping in - taunting the person who can't answer back - is that a Conservative trait or a conservative trait. To my knowledge it is not a Christian trait. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:33, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative]] I thought you did not have any time in the next couple of years to engage in - or even read for that matter - conversations such as this. This is very much like the type of discussion you would find on a talk page, is it not? Are you going back on your promise, are you not as busy as you thought you would be or have your commitments been lessened? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:55, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Wilcox, tied up the Fergus Mason loose end today. May be checking recent changes less frequently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
:::AlanE, the underlying issue is I offered valid criticism of so called [[liberal Christianity]] via facts/studies and the best Patmac could do is say "I am offended", "you are hateful", etc. etc. I am offended, etc. etc. is not a rational defense that regates facts/reality. It is a petulant display of immaturity. It is lame - just like his I will get you barred out of the UK lameness. I am offended is #5 of [[liberal style]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

== Creationists GROWING. Atheists flagging ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/atheist-wiki-lacks-internet-machismo.html Creationist group's influence GROWING. Atheist wiki flagging]

== Gun purchasing advice ==

Having recently acquired a handgun permit in New York state (not an easy thing to do, I assure you; it seems I've been at it for years!) I can now legally purchase a handgun to go along with my collection of rifles. Does anyone have any advice on what sort of gun I should buy? Any informed opinion, especially if Biblically inspired, would be most appreciated. Thanks. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 13:50, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
:Congratulations! Really, it depends on your situation and what you're trying to accomplish. Assuming you're willing to make a moderately large investment in your collection, to cover all your bases, I would recommend five guns: a semiautomatic, magazine-fed rifle (for defending against large mobs); a bolt-action hunting/sniper rifle (for killing large game or defending against an entrenched marauder); a shotgun (for fowl hunting); a .22 caliber rifle (to hone shooting skills and bag small game); and a pistol (for close-in self-defense). If you can only afford a few of these, you may have to do some soul-searching about which of these needs is most important and relevant to your circumstances. Personal proclivities will also be a factor, of course; some people are partial to particular guns. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:17, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== AbuseFilter ==

I strongly recommend installing [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter AbuseFilter] as a way to throttle nighttime editing rather than disabling it entirely. It is a rather powerful tool for stopping other kinds of vandalism too; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter for some ideas. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:52, 6 January 2014 (EST)

:I don't think they know how. I constantly get a server error that says to contact the webmaster, even when the wiki is open to edit. [[User:JohnBD|JohnBD]] 19:12, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking " There are no black holes" Another example of conservapedia proven right? ==

Did any one read the recent article on Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583. After all these, there may not be any blackholes.--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 18:40, 25 January 2014 (EST)

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2014-01-28T02:53:36Z

Muteswan: An important news item I propose to be published and commented

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

This is a message to Conservapedia people who edit current news, and if this is the wrong place to put it, can someone move it to the right place, please? The subject is: I propose that Conservapedia report and comment a telling current event: When two children, standing next to Pope Francis released two white doves, accenting Pope's plea for peace, two other birds: a crow and a seagull came from nowhere and attacked the doves in flight, probably killing one of them. Crowds of people witnessed that. The enclosed picture of the black crow tearing apart the white dove conveying the peace message makes one think: Are we sure it was just a crow, and not an envoy of The One Who Hates Peace - the Satan? Here is the picture:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/27/angry-birds-popes-peace-doves-attacked/comment-page-5/

I've put together a blog that applies tenets of the Christian faith to everyday life and our responsibility as citizens. I add a new article every few days and I would love it if you guys could start following and get people to read this. Remember James 2:17- "faith without works is dead." We have to start teaching those who come after us. Here is the link- I don't know how to get this in the News Feed on the main page.

I am an active military officer in my 20s and a combat veteran. It serves me best to keep my identity to myself for now. Below is the link.

http://www.defendingamericanvalues.blogspot.com

== Insults ==

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

''Hi,

''I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

''http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

''Excerpt: '''I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!'''

''I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

''It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read [[Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]], where User:Conservative asks: '''''By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite?''''' I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to ''trim'' my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

::AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on this slope] and has a [http://creation.com/truth-decay significant case of "truth decay".] If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:*The EKKW is one of the more conservative ''Landeskirchen'' of the EKD.
:*Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of ''cuius regio eius religio''. So under the tent of a ''Landeskirche'' you will find various, often struggling opinions.
:*'''All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks.''' You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
:*I'm not the first one to be treated this way - [[User:MaxFletcher]] was insulted similarly.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various ''Landeskirchen'' would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST)

*User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: ''I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.''
*Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters ('''''I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. '''''), while admitting that you have not much information ('''''I did do some cursory investigation ''''') is truly amazing!
*A statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by ''all'' Christians. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4fa466c4c219ef7377db25265f553ab7-183.html]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen.
::::@ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can '''not''' be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks.
::::AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: ''Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd.'' Herzlich --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a '''family-friendly encyclopediay'''. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:
*they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia
*there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing
*frankly, the ''Popular articles at Conservapedia '' aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker!
*finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?
It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ''ignored/trimmed''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

: Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia.
: If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]], [[evolution]], [[homosexuality]] and [[liberal]] articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:: Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles. I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that ''my'' [[catholic church|church]] has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal? I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]''' in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my '''"liberal Christianity" "pastor" '''[is]''' a lesbian or sodomite''' insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means [[User:Aschlafly]]) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as [[User:Conservative]] has observed so smugly.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*''August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. '' Show me some examples ''Bible believing churches'' in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in ''spiritual decline''. I assume that your ''Bible believing churches'' are as energetic as the ''Question Evolution campaign!''.
:*''Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation.'' It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it.
:*''I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate.'' Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis.
:*''When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline.'' Another hidden attack against my church - and me...
:*''The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope].'' You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice.
:*''I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology.'' Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult.
:*''But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. '' Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis.
:*''By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. '' I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/106#Conundrum|here]]
:*''Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return.'' I got ''mad'' because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the ''debate'' and the ''debaters'' - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it.
:*''I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten.'' Sorry, not my sport.
:*''I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. '' *LOL*

:So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on ''Young Earth Creationism'' and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW.

:Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look [http://questionevolutionde.blogspot.com/ HERE], it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I ''fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:
*''Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! '' and
*''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''
I think that these ideas don't help to have a ''fruitful dialog''. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning ''Question Evolution!'', though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign#Who_is_this_campaign_aimed_to_.3F|here]], this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the ''Hornberger Schiessen''.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/ unique picture] relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3676931503/in/photostream HERE] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3666454904/in/photostream HERE]. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*'' Am I missing something? '' Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement ''August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' is just not true.
:*''Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany?'' And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small.
:*''If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing.'' One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your ''guesses'' as something to bolster your ''convictions''!
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST)

*''It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach.'' Indeed.
*''I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though.'' Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians?
*''Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much.'' Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment.
*''Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case.'' Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses.
*''However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance.'' A ''non sequitur''. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his ''pretended'' belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions ==

User:Conservative deleted [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] and stated as the reason for this action ‎''if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!''

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (''I'll take my ball and go home''), therefore I created [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]. The debate is important, as the '''15 questions''' are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is '''allowed''' to answer...--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 block of Rudrick Boucher ==

[[User:RudrickBoucher]] was blocked for '''two years''' for breaking the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARudrickBoucher 90/10 rule]. As he is a first-time offender this seems to be an extraordinary long ban - and therefore smacks of ideological censorship.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:15, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:I do find the 90/10 rule a bit of a strange one. Considering how so many articles here are protected, in many cases for no apparent reason it seems, and how the [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]] encourages a cautious approach to editing with an emphasis on discussing changes first, the best contributor could be someone who actually violates the 90/10 rule, because they are careful to ensure there is agreement about the change they want to make or simply that they can't edit the article due to protection. Then of course there are the debate pages which are clearly venues for people to talk about issues. The ratio of talk page to article edits alone is a very poor measure of the value of a contributor. It does seem one rule that can easily be abused. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Page protect requests==
What is the point of getting a page protect request granted from the site owner so editors can work collaboratively on a sub page, only to have the site owners action undone and opening of a key article to vandals and revert wars? Does the unlocking sysop's action encourage collaborative editing by good faith users, forcing them to waste their time that could be used contributing content, rather than revert warring with trolls? What recourse do good faith editors have for sysop actions from sysops that are incommunicado? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 28 January 2012 (EST)

== We should be nicer ==

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

1 John 3:11-15 NIV
11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Proverbs 15:1
1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-[[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]] 10:23, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Libertarians ==

I noticed that the rules of conservapedia state the libertarian views are considered "conservative". Presumably, this would apply to economic issues only as their views on social issues are typically quite liberal. I don't have a problem with this, seeing as I am a libertarian myself and have essentially agreed to disagree on the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff. But, since we allow libertarians, who are fiscally conservative/socially liberal, would we allow groups like Peronists, who are fiscally liberal/socially conservative? I forget the link where I saw libertarians specifically mentioned as allowed, but I'll try to find it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:33, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

==Mediawiki features==
Wondering if these features are implemented here:
*<nowiki><categorytree></nowiki>
*page transclusion, e.g.:
:{{Wikiproject:Ex-gay movement/Members}}
Thanks, [[User:LJoseph|LJoseph]] 00:44, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting well-written response ==

Having recently found the wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religiosity_and_intelligence Religiosity and intelligence], I found myself in the strange situation of not knowing where to look for another perspective. Clearly they misinterpret the results of the few studies cited, but it would be very interesting to see if any studies provide different results or at least discuss the accuracy of the cited studies. It would be great to see an article [[Religiosity and intelligence]] on Conservapedia to provide a rebuttal to the other wiki. -- [[User:Jehoshaphat|Jehoshaphat]] 00:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:Clearly there is a link. Newton was a devout Christian and look what he achieved!! Whether the link is causative or merely correlative is hard to say. On the one hand God is likely to look with favour on his adherents, but on the other it may be that intelligent people are just more likely to believe in God. I am not aware of any biblical references that will help you with your research, but others may be able to assist. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 07:14, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:::see: [[Atheism and intelligence]]. I hope that helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:37, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

== Proposed update to Mediawiki 1.18.x ==

This is a redux of User:Conservative's suggestion to update Mediawiki to version 1.18.x (where x is any release version that is stable). His rational for this is to allow support for Extension:Wikilog (a wiki blogging device), and to update the php script used to create titles (so AT&T shows up instead of AT%20T in search, etc).

===Pros===
*I agree, as it will also allow for the installation of various extensions, that I find are incredibly useful on a wiki community, such as [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Nx/vandalbrake VandalBrake] (a extension that slows down vandals significantly, but still lets them lodge complaints, etc [The original link is apparently blacklisted: rhymes with nationalpikcy]), the WIGO extension, by Nx again, and even core reversion deletion. The update itself is a simple, clicking proccess that ASchafly could spend a matter of minutes configuring.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:10, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
*[https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_1.16 MediaWiki 1.16] is more than three years old and therefore technical support is no longer available from the Wikimedia Foundation. The software probably has security weaknesses that hackers could be attempting to exploit as we speak in an effort to use Conservapedia's servers as a vector for black hat activities. Websites with security vulnerabilities are a key part of the illicit global infrastructure of malware, spam and phishing. Bot herders crawl the web looking for websites with security vulnerabilities, and then use the vulnerabilities to hijack them. The hijacked website will distribute malware (viruses) to visitors, either via browser vulnerabilities or overtly by social engineering. The downloaded malware turns the client's computer into a "zombie" that is part of a global network of organized crime aimed at stealing bank account details, sending spam, and extorting money from websites with denial-of-service threats. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 11:02, 6 January 2014 (EST)

===Cons===

===Vote===
This is not open for voting yet 

== question ==

I'm pretty sure that on wikipedia there is the ability to see the number of page views, does this website allow you to do anything similar? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:59, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:Yes. Please look at the very bottom of each page in the white "margin". Also please look at [[Special:PopularPages]], which gives a sorted list. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:05, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
==Editor retention==
Do we have any statistics on editor retention? I know that the [[Special:Statistics]] page says that 719 people have edited in the past 91 days, but I suspect that this includes spammers and sockpuppets who are promptly blocked. What is the current size of our editor corps? What can we do to retain more editors or to recognize and reward editors for their service?

Wikipedia has a "Wikimania" conference. Has CP considered a face-to-face event to encourage comraderie among our volunteers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)
==Main Page proposal==
Currently only two editors control most of the content for the main page. Rather than promote the great content of Conservapedia, the main page promotes off-wiki content. Obvious suggestions, such as noting the passing of Senator [[Daniel Inouye]], do not receive serious consideration. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/119#Main_Page_Right Other proposals have been ignored.] I have just proposed on [[Talk:Main Page]] that we establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)
: Please leave your comments [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Formal_Proposal_to_Establish_a_Main_Page_Committee here.] Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:14, 20 December 2012 (EST)

== Conservative Hypocrisy (Please read FULLY before judging/deleting/blocking ==
I know I'm new here and that my opinions have already run counter to a few of the more senior users here; however I'd like to reiterate how much I respect the work you're doing and my desire to help make this site a respected alternative to wikipedia. Now, onto the point of this post.
One of the biggest and most frequent complaints I've seen on this site in my time here, first just as a read and now as an editor, seems to have been the lack of a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. Now, I know that this has been a very unpopular topic, but I also think it's a large enough issue to require addressing if we want to be taken seriously by the center/undecided population in the political, social and religious aspects of society. The true conservatives already agree with what is being presented on this site and will no matter what, we need to gain acceptance from those who are not already on our side in order to expand.
Now, does gaining that acceptance mean we have to weaken our stances or compromise our beliefs? Not in the least. I merely suggest that it means we need to be honest and open about all of the truth, not just the parts we like.
So, if anyone is still reading with an open mind at this point, here my suggestion for a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. We already have pages on [[RINO]]s, [[PLINO]]s and [[XINO]]s as well as personal biography pages on public figures who claim to be conservative while demonstrating the complete opposite through their actions. Like it or not, these are all examples (to my understanding of the definition of the word hypocrisy) of [[Conservative Hypocrisy]].
As far as I can tell, I'm going about making this suggestion in the right way and in the right place, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on wiki-etiquette, so please feel free to move it to the proper place and let me know if I've made a mistake. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear some feedback in the near future, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:19, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
::I find it very hard to believe that no one has any opinion on this so I'm assuming it just got missed... I'll give it 24 more hours and if there's still no objection or comment I'm going to start working on drafting a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page according to the outline I described above. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 23:18, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
:::You can write a page concerning the abandonment of conservative principles by some, but the answer is no for a "conservative hypocrisy" page. This was attempted by trolls and thugs several years ago when they tried to force their way on the site, and it won't be allowed now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::I think you missed my point while actually making my point for me at the same time... I haven't been here long, yet I've already seen the trolls and thugs repeatedly bring it up and attempt vandalization through the fact that the page doesn't exist. If we make the page, present the facts and admit while that conservatives as a whole are not perfect, we are still much better than the alternatives, we take that power away from them. Please reread my initial post, take some time to contemplate 1 John 1:10 and/or Romans 3:23 and then if you still believe we should not publicly admit the shortcomings of some of our conservative brothers and sisters in order to make this site a more accepted and viable alternative to wikipedia, then I'll drop the subject. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::The answer is still no. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for being open minded enough to give my suggestion a full 17 minutes and 5 words worth of your time. As promised, I won't bring it up again. Sincerely, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 10:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::What about "[[pseudoconservative hypocrisy]]"? Could that work? Every movement has pseudobelievers who infiltrate to spread a pernicious doctrine; this is why so much of the text of Acts and the letters of the New Testament are devoted to warning of false teachers entering the church. The word "[[antichrist]]" in Greek is "pseudokhristos" or "false Messiah". It happens in political movements too. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:32, 6 January 2014 (EST)
::::That would work, provided it is demonstrated that 1) the individual involved claimed to be conservative; 2) it is proven that he lied about being conservative and/or willfully abandoned conservative principles. A lot of RINOs are like that. The term "pseudoconservative" would have to be clearly stated in the first paragraph as to what it means. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:16, 6 January 2014 (EST)
:::::The first step is to establish what [[precision|precisely]] it means to be a conservative. Then we can more productively attempt to assess whether a particular person's behavior has fallen short of that mark or not. Consider, for example, George W. Bush. People say that he wasn't very fiscally conservative, but how fiscally conservative would he have to be to not count as a hypocrite? What numbers would have to appear in a budget in order for us to conclude that the person responsible is a true conservative, and how much of a deviation from those numbers would it take to make a person qualify for the pseudoconservative category? Unless we have some way to settle such issues objectively, we are setting ourselves up for endless arguments that go nowhere, or else are settled by some arbitrary fiat. It's not like a private sector contract, in which the numbers are spelled out beforehand, and we can definitively say whether a party breached the contract.

:::::This matter is made even more touchy by the fact that leftists and other political opponents of conservatives rejoice to see infighting amongst conservatives about who are the true and who are the false conservatives. They like to see conservative resources expended uselessly on divisive conflicts that breed bitterness and eventual attrition within the ranks. So in trying to debate whether a particular conservative is a hypocrite, we will have to simultaneously deal with people's fears that we're playing right into the leftists' hands by even engaging in that discussion. Before we get started, I think we need to be aware of all the barriers to productive conversation and decide whether we can or should commit ourselves to overcoming them, or else it's better just to not even get underway on this effort.

:::::Incidentally, the particular manifestation of conservative infighting that anti-conservatives love above all others is when conservatives falsely accuse one another of not being true conservatives and purge the innocent from their ranks. This damages the movement by (1) directly diminishing its manpower through the loss of the purged members, (2) causing more infighting that results in more attrition (whether by (a) resignation of members who are disgusted by either (I) the way the fighting is going or (II) the fact that so much attention is devoted to fighting in general; or by (b) further purges, when one faction or another gets the upper hand over the other and expels its adversaries), and (4) detracting from the movement's reputation for fairness, reasonableness and effectiveness, which hinders recruitment.

:::::One is reminded of [[2 Samuel]] 11-12. [[David]] and [[Uriah]] were supposed to be on the same side, but David turned on him without good cause. In 2 Samuel 12:14, [[Nathan]] points out, "by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme". The enemies of conservatism watch what we do for any sign of illogic or factual inaccuracy, yearning to chortle over any error we might make. Worrying about it excessively can in fact induce more errors, due to the potential for self-consciousness to distract from the task at hand. Therefore, we can and should, of course, let the dogs bark and pay no heed to their yelping, knowing that ultimately, "with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." ([[1 Peter]] 2:15) I just point it out because the possibility often comes up in these debates. Creating an article like [[pseudoconservative hypocrisy]] is like [http://imgur.com/wGUTG code refactoring]; one wants to think through the likely consequences before venturing into that bathtub. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 09:37, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Moving / renaming pages ==

Please could someone explain how to rename pages on CP so as to preserve the editing history. I know it can be done on WP but I guess it isn't done the same way on CP. (I know it can be done on WP because I couldn't figure out how to do it on CP, so I looked up how to do it on WP, then I saw that their method doesn't apply to CP - a button is missing or something.) I want to do this because I've been studying British History at school and I want to change the names of pages about their Prime Ministers to those that people would recognise, e.g. Marquess of Rockingham instead of Charles Wentworth-Watson, Duke of Portland instead of William Cavendish-Bentinck, etc. This would make CP easier to use for studying British History. Thanks to anyone who can help me here. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 17:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
:Is any sysop monitoring this page? If so, please could you answer my question. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 20:35, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

==over 12 hours of not being able to edit==
I posted this problem last week elsewhere and never received a response, just as I received no response from the email I sent when it happened the week before that... So I guess I'll try it here. From 10am to 1030pm (Eastern Time) I was unable to edit any page on this site, including my own user and user:talk pages. It occurred suddenly while I was removing dead end pages and according to my "block records" I have never been blocked, yet this is at least the 4th time it has happened. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:56, 22 April 2013 (EDT)
:If there isn't a FAQ already with this question, it should be added. At night, the wiki is locked to editing. I would propose that instead, some other means of deterring vandalism be implemented. For example, edits could be throttled at night. People could be allowed to make, say, two edits every 30 minutes. This would limit the potential for vandalism; users in the Edit group would be able to keep up with reverting it without the need for a sysop to be around to block people. Another possibility is to give more users sysop rights and [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Establishing_a_hierarchy_of_bureaucrats establish a hierarchy of bureaucrats] to keep them in check. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:28, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== Public notice to evolutionists - 6/1/2013 ==

The Sherman tank(s), also known as [[User: Conservative]] :), is/are not going to be bogged down in the talk page [http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/hedgerowbreakout.aspx hedgerows] fighting pointless, low priority battles with insincere, evolutionist posers who are too afraid to debate the creationist [[VivaYehshua]] (the biology major at a university) on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. See: [[VivaYehshua]].

I/we hear the pings of your sniper fire in the recent changes log of CP, but your rifle fire is having no effect! I/we are not bogged down!

Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionists-failed-to-overturn.html]
::VivaYehshua's ability to make evolutionists quake in their boots (especially Fergus Mason) is becoming more widely known.[http://templestream.xanga.com/771564827/top-problems-with-evolutionary-teaching-today/] :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

== QuestyCaptcha ==
I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:QuestyCaptcha works best with lower-profile wikis that don't have a determined base of vandals who would put in the effort to crack all the questions. That said, QuestyCaptcha would provide opportunities for some interesting [[shibboleth]]s. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:19, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason. VivaYehshua won hands down and effortlessly ==

Mr. Mason, anytime you want your head back, just agree to debate VivaYehshua and actually carry through with the debate this time. Unless of course, you are still a quivering bowl of jelly! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Mr DeMy*er, any time you want a book published ask me to write it for you, instead of some cretard loser. $2,000 plus tax and your "15 Questions" book will be done by the end of the month.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:56, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
: Haha, all the evolutionists I have ever met are like this, they run away from fights at every chance. [[User:RowanO|RowanO]] 11:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Rowan, I turned up for the debate and instantly got banned by another moderator. Ken tends to forget that little detail.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:58, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
It has been agreed that debating this person is not a reason for being blocked, I think your hatred is a valid reason for a block, you are a coward and a bully. I am seriously considering reporting user:Conservative to UK immigration and having him declared "Persona non Grata" in the UK--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 11:22, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Patmac, you are an endless source of amusement! How many people do you think go by the name of [[User: Conservative]] on their passports when entering the UK. :) Second, Fergus Mason agreed to debate VivaYehshua. Now all he has to do to remove his stain of intellectual weakness, cowardice and dishonor is carry through on his promise and debate VivaYehshua. Unless of course, Fergus is afraid of being soundly thrashed in a debate and having the debate widely distributed. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:15, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Patmac, are you going to get Scotland Yard on this case or are you going to report [[User: Conservative]] to Interpol for high crimes and misdemeanors instead? You are acting like a yappy, little dog that is all bark and no bite. Patmac, liberalism is rapidly heading towards financial bankruptcy in the West and will collapse under its own weight. It happened in the Soviet Union and it will happen to Western nations which ignore the lessons of Greece and what is starting to be played out in California. Empty threats by members of teetering ideologies are not impressive in the least. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Unsurprisingly patmac has been blocked user:c so he will not be able to respond. It's a shame really, I would have loved to hear the British Home Secretary's reply to any communication from him. I reckon I would have heard her laughing here where I live in the UK 40 miles from London, in fact I suspect you would have heard the laughing all the way over in the US. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:40, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::Patmac, I looked up and suddenly saw your signature turn red. I didn't ask Karajou to declare you "Persona non Grata". He did this on his own accord. I do find it to be a case of poetic justice though considering your empty threat to get me/us banned from the UK. For all you know, I/we could be in the UK right now eating fish and chips and washing it down with Mackeson Stout! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Nice try, Ken. I see you forgot to mention that Viva (who isn't a christian, by the way) is still banned from Shock's pathetic chatroom. That makes your "debate challenge" a farce, rendered all the more farcical by your cowardly refusal to debate me yourself. Here's me, willing to take time off from writing my latest book to debate you, and you're too gutless. You must really enjoy the company of those bunnies.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:54, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::User:C, considering the current debacle surrounding Patmac, I would suggest avoiding mention of him for the time being (especially given your highly provocative relationship with him)[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:01, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
Fergus, you don't know what you are talking about and I/we also don't believe you are being sincere.

First, trinitarian Messianic Jews like VivaYehshua, recognize that Jesus was God and the Savior of mankind. Also, in most forms of Messianic Judaism salvation is by God's grace (I am assuming many of them also believe that true faith will have works).

Second, in the past you claimed that VivaYehshua did not like the 15 questions for evolutionists. I/we talked to VivaYehshua and he does like the 15 questions for evolutionists. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c HERE] is a video of Shockofgod and VivaYehshua on the Question Evolution Campaign which includes the 15 questions for evolutionists. So why should I believe your claim that Viva has been banned from the Shockofgod's chatroom? I/we don't believe this. VivaYehshua is now attending a university for biology and he is working too. I/we think he is merely busier and in the chatroom less. Shockofgod is still reachable through (twitter, YouTube channel, blog) and so there is no reason why you can't get in contact with VivaYehshua and/or Shockofgod.

Fergus, just admit it. You agreed to debate VivaYehshua and then you cowardly backed down! I/we wouldn't even consider debating a cowardly and obscure evolutionist such as yourself until you keep your promise to debate VivaYehshua. First socks Fergus and then shoes! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:10, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::By the way Patmac, I/we know why you became so enraged and had your childish, little "I'll get you banned from the UK" temper tantrum. That cat that gets hit by the shoe yelps the loudest! You know that what I/we said about [[evolution|Darwinism]] and [[liberal Christianity]] are true. See: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] and [[Liberal Christianity and irrationalism]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:31, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

:Mackeson Stout!!? C'mon Cons; try and refer to what you know, not what you've had to search for. (And while I am at it - what has [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] got to do with the subject being discussed? Oh! I see. It's a bit of triumphalism creeping in - taunting the person who can't answer back - is that a Conservative trait or a conservative trait. To my knowledge it is not a Christian trait. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:33, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative]] I thought you did not have any time in the next couple of years to engage in - or even read for that matter - conversations such as this. This is very much like the type of discussion you would find on a talk page, is it not? Are you going back on your promise, are you not as busy as you thought you would be or have your commitments been lessened? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:55, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Wilcox, tied up the Fergus Mason loose end today. May be checking recent changes less frequently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
:::AlanE, the underlying issue is I offered valid criticism of so called [[liberal Christianity]] via facts/studies and the best Patmac could do is say "I am offended", "you are hateful", etc. etc. I am offended, etc. etc. is not a rational defense that regates facts/reality. It is a petulant display of immaturity. It is lame - just like his I will get you barred out of the UK lameness. I am offended is #5 of [[liberal style]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

== Creationists GROWING. Atheists flagging ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/atheist-wiki-lacks-internet-machismo.html Creationist group's influence GROWING. Atheist wiki flagging]

== Gun purchasing advice ==

Having recently acquired a handgun permit in New York state (not an easy thing to do, I assure you; it seems I've been at it for years!) I can now legally purchase a handgun to go along with my collection of rifles. Does anyone have any advice on what sort of gun I should buy? Any informed opinion, especially if Biblically inspired, would be most appreciated. Thanks. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 13:50, 21 July 2013 (EDT)
:Congratulations! Really, it depends on your situation and what you're trying to accomplish. Assuming you're willing to make a moderately large investment in your collection, to cover all your bases, I would recommend five guns: a semiautomatic, magazine-fed rifle (for defending against large mobs); a bolt-action hunting/sniper rifle (for killing large game or defending against an entrenched marauder); a shotgun (for fowl hunting); a .22 caliber rifle (to hone shooting skills and bag small game); and a pistol (for close-in self-defense). If you can only afford a few of these, you may have to do some soul-searching about which of these needs is most important and relevant to your circumstances. Personal proclivities will also be a factor, of course; some people are partial to particular guns. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:17, 6 January 2014 (EST)

== AbuseFilter ==

I strongly recommend installing [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:AbuseFilter AbuseFilter] as a way to throttle nighttime editing rather than disabling it entirely. It is a rather powerful tool for stopping other kinds of vandalism too; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter for some ideas. [[User:Dhdidnac|Dhdidnac]] 10:52, 6 January 2014 (EST)

:I don't think they know how. I constantly get a server error that says to contact the webmaster, even when the wiki is open to edit. [[User:JohnBD|JohnBD]] 19:12, 7 January 2014 (EST)

== Stephen Hawking " There are no black holes" Another example of conservapedia proven right? ==

Did any one read the recent article on Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583. After all these, there may not be any blackholes.--[[User:OconnorM|Maria O'Connor]] 18:40, 25 January 2014 (EST)

George Washington

2012-06-01T23:11:23Z

Muteswan: /* Quotes from George Washington */Washington's quote on religion and morality added

{{Officeholder
|name=George Washington
|image=George washington 3.jpg
|party=None
|spouse=[[Martha Dandridge Custis Washington]]
|religion=[[Anglican]]/[[Episcopalian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=1st
|terms=April 30, 1789 – March 4, 1797
|vp=[[John Adams]]
|preceded=None
|former=y
|succeeded=[[John Adams]]
}}

|military=y
|allegiance=[[Great Britain]], [[The United States]]
|branch=Continental Army United States Army
|serviceyears=Continental Army: 1775–1783 U. S. Army: 1798–1799
|rank= Lieutenant General; General of the Armies of the United States
|commands=Continental Army United States Army
|battles=[[French and Indian War]] [[American Revolutionary War]]
|awards=Congressional Gold Medal, Thanks of Congress
}}
'''George Washington''' (1732-1799) was the first [[President of the United States]] (1789-1797) and commander in chief of the [[Continental Army]]. He was the dominant military and political leader of the new [[United States of America]] from 1775-1797, leading the American victory over [[Britain]] in the [[American Revolution]] and was the unanimous choice to serve as president. Along with [[Abraham Lincoln]], he has become the foremost icon of American nationalism and a model of the ideal [[Republicanism|republican]] union of political and military leadership.
{{cquote|'''The Constitution is the guide, which I never will abandon. — George Washington'''}}
Washington endeared himself to Americans by his efforts to destroy monarchy and aristocracy. The archetype of Washington as the republican champion has become part of America's collective idealization of faith-based citizenship, and is immortalized in New York City's [[Washington Square Arch]], which depicts Washington the soldier on the left, and Washington the statesman on the right.<ref>For photographic images, see http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GV/GV046WashingtonSquareArch.htm</ref>

==Early Life==
Washington was born on Feb. 22, 1732, at Wakefield, [[Virginia]] to Augustine Washington, a wealthy planter, and his second wife, Mary Ball. He was home schooled by his father and older half-brother Lawrence, and in later life read widely. His interests were in land, in surveying, and in farming. His father died in 1743, and George lived with Lawrence. Lawrence died in 1752. Washington leased the estate from Lawrence's widow until her death in 1761, when he inherited the plantation and joined the local upper class.

===Military experience===
In 1748 he joined an expedition sent out by the sixth Lord Fairfax to survey his lands in the Shenandoah Valley. Washington was eager for a military career. The first step came in October 1753 when the lieutenant governor Robert Dinwiddie sent him to warn the French at Presque Isle (now Erie, PA.) and Fort Le Boeuf (now Waterford, PA) against making further encroachments on British-claimed territory in the Ohio Valley. The 11-week journey, some 500 miles (800 km) round-trip, was dangerous, as Washington evaded hostile [[Native American|Indians]] (allied to the French). He reported back that a frontier conflict was imminent with [[France]].
[[Image:GW1755.jpg|thumb|220px|Colonel George Washington of the Virginia militia]]
====French and Indian War====
In April 1754 Washington returned to the Ohio country as lieutenant colonel in command of a volunteer force with the mission of checking the French and protecting an expedition sent out by the Ohio Company of Virginia to build a fort on the Ohio River, at what is now [[Pittsburgh]]. Washington discovered the French had reached the site first. They called it Fort Duquesne. In May he fired on a party of French soldiers, killing ten, including their leader, Jumonville. The French now could cite the attack on Jumonville as a cause of war. This was Washington's first battle and the first engagement of the [[French and Indian War]], which became a major war in Europe.

On July 3 at Fort Necessity he was attacked by superior French forces led by Jumonville's brother and was compelled to surrender. The terms offered were generous and Washington returned to Virginia. Washington was criticized for his imprudence, and relations cooled between him and Dinwiddie.

To meet the French threat the British sent Maj. Gen. Edward Braddock and two under-strength regiments of British regulars to Virginia. Washington served as aide-de-camp to Braddock on his expedition to capture Fort Duquesne. Braddock was ambushed and killed by the French and Indians in July; Washington displayed courage and initiative in halting the rout that followed.

In August 1755 he was promoted to colonel and made commander in chief of all Virginia forces, responsible for the defense of a 350-mile (560-km) frontier against French and Indian attack. It was a difficult challenge militarily, but Washington met it and learned the administrative needs of commanding a major force. He was on the defensive throughout 1756 and 1757, but in 1758 he accompanied Brig. Gen. John Forbes and a large force to attack Fort Duquesne. They discovered the French had left and there was no combat. Washington returned to Virginia and resigned his commission at the end of 1758. For him, as for Virginia, the French and Indian War was over. He had been bloodied in combat, was an acknowledged leader of Virginia soldiers, knew the frontier better than anyone, and had a sterling reputation. On the other hand he had demonstrated no remarkable strategic or tactical skills, and had displayed rashness in action against Jumonville. Washington, a very tall strong man, demonstrated great physical courage and endurance, qualities much admired in a military leader.

Ellis (2004) concludes Washington was influenced by the East, where he picked up the deferential world of British patronage and hierarchy and curried favor from the well-connected Fairfax family, but failed to get a permanent commission in the British army. From the West came experiences on the Ohio frontier, where Washington carried out surveying expeditions and military campaigns against the French and Indians. Going to war instead of to college, Ellis concludes, scarred and immunized Washington against idealism.

===Planter and family life===
On Jan. 6, 1759, Washington married [[Martha Washington|Martha Dandridge Custis]], a very wealthy widow with two young children. Washington had no children of his own, but he later adopted two of his wife's grandchildren: George Washington Parke Custis and Eleanor Custis, who married Washington's nephew Lawrence. The marriage was a comfortably happy one. It made him rich, for the Custis plantation covered some 17,000 acres and included 300 slaves and a town house in [[Williamsburg]]. Washington proved himself an able and active manager, with a keen interest in scientific agriculture and land speculation. He bought up unoccupied western lands shrewdly, even in advance of permission from London. Unlike most planters, he foresaw the risks involved in a concentration on [[tobacco]] and diversified his crops. He grew wheat as well as tobacco on his Potomac farms, and by 1772 he was exporting both fish and flour to the West Indies. By 1774 he was one of the wealthiest of landowners at a time when ownership of land involved the administration of managers, overseers, tenants, and slaves; the keeping of accounts with the tobacco factors in Britain; and the ordering from England of most tools, furniture and clothing.

The local gentry controlled local government. Washington became a vestryman (in charge of the local [[Anglican]] church) and a justice of the peace. From 1758 to 1765 he was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses for Frederick County, and from 1765 for Fairfax, although he took little part in affairs in Williamsburg. He was not a debater, speaker or pamphleteer, but nevertheless struck a conspicuous figure as a man of sound military, political and economic judgment. He had shown particular concern over bounty land due to the veterans of the French and Indian War, and he knew the Virginia frontier at first hand. Washington was America's first great entrepreneur, who saw the future of a diversified economy even in the South and achieved it for himself at least; who saw the future of the West and invested in it; and who directed all his activities with a careful and rather cold efficiency.

==American Revolution==
Washington's path to revolution reflected the American ideology of [[Republicanism, U.S.|republicanism]]; indeed, it provides "an almost textbook example of the Radical Whig ideology that historians have made the central feature of scholarship on the American Revolution for the past forty years."<ref>Ellis (2004) p. 62</ref> Personal experiences on multiple levels convinced Washington there was indeed a a British conspiracy to enslave the colonies, as he saw imperial policies constantly limiting and restricting his prized autonomy. In his quests for a commission in the redcoat army, for western land, and for economic independence from British consignment merchants, Washington found himself losing out, becoming a helpless dependent.

Washington and the Continental Army triumphed by driving the 10,000 British out of [[Boston]] in March 1776. The tide turned; Washington barely survived humiliating defeats the defense of New York City that fall. He revived the nation's fortunes by crossing the Delaware River and defeating British forces in stunning victories at Trenton and Princeton over the winter of 1776-77.
[[Image:washington-deleware.jpg|320px|right|thumb|''Washington Crossing the Delaware'', by Emmanuel Leutze, 1850]]

As Ellis (2004) argues, the June 1775-March 1776 siege of Boston was the formative event in Washington's development as a military and political leader, for it was there that he first responded to the logistical problems inherent to the American cause in the Revolutionary War with his trademark determination, leadership ability, and sound decision making. He also, however, exhibited a stubborn, aloof, severe personality that "virtually precluded intimacy." Washington, dubbed "His Excellency" by the adoring American public, also became acquainted with many of his future staff members and lieutenants during this period. The British were forced out of Boston and every place in America, which declared its independence and became "the United States of America" on July 4, 1776.

[[King George III]] personally demanded the rebellion be suppressed. He sent two-thirds of his army, and half of the Royal Navy in "the largest projection of seaborne power ever attempted by a European power."<ref>Fischer (2004) p. 33</ref> The British sent 23,000 regular troops under experienced officers and sergeants, and another 10,000 trained Hessians (hired Germans) supported by 70 warships. The ocean off the entire [[Atlantic Ocean|Atlantic]] coast came under British control, shutting down the large American merchant marine. In the face of this, Washington's forces melted away. He had more than 28,000 men under his command at the end of August when the British landed. After losing badly in New York City, at the beginning of December he had a mere 6,800. But he used them in an audacious Christmas-day attack that destroyed the Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey <ref>Hessians lost 896 captured, 22 killed and 83 seriously wounded. Washington lost two men killed in battle, two more frozen to death, and eight wounded. Fischer (2004) pp. 254-5. </ref> and defeated the British outpost at Princeton, New Jersey. Threatened by Washington and harassed by patriotic farmer-marksmen, the British withdrew from the state of [[New Jersey]].

[[Image:Am-Rev.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Advantages (top) and disadvantages (bottom) General Washington had to cope with during the Revolution]]
In 1777 he tricked the British into dividing their forces so that one British army under General Howe confronted (and defeated) Washington in unimportant battles near [[Philadelphia]], while the main British army under general Cornwallis was forced to surrender at Saratoga, in upstate New York. This great American victory at Saratoga enabling the French to enter the war officially and make it an even contest militarily.

When the British moved in fall 1777 to capture the national capital at Philadelphia, Washington moved south to stop them, but was defeated by Howe at Brandywine (Sept 11) and Germantown (Oct 4). The British wintered in comfort in the city while Washington's army, 11,000 strong at first, had stark quarters at Valley Forge nearby. "The whole of them," said Gen. John Sullivan, were "without watch coats, one half without blankets, and more than one third without shoes . . . many of them without jackets...and not a few without shirts." Rations were scarce, as the local farmers refused to accept Continental money. Exhausted and ill, hundreds deserted to go home to their farms. Washington warned Congress: "unless some great and capital change suddenly takes place... this army must inevitably...starve, dissolve or disperse." Many in Congress grumbled about Washington's leadership and there was talk of promoting his chief critic, General Thomas Conway. However Congress and the army realized Washington was indispensable, and he remained in charge. The bright note was that Washington brought in a highly skilled European officer, General [[Friedrich von Steuben]], who systematically trained the officers and sergeants in the latest drills and maneuvering techniques of the Prussian army.<ref> Quotes from Freeman 4:570, 568.</ref>

===Victory in the South 1780-81===
The British made one last major effort in 1780-81, invading South Carolina (and remote Georgia) in the hopes of rallying enough Loyalists to break off the southern states. Washington kept the main British army bottled up in New York City, as the southern campaigns turned into [[guerrilla warfare]] and assassination squads. The British realized they had failed and moved their army to Yorktown, Virginia, awaiting the Royal Navy to take it to New York. The British fleet did show up but was defeated by a stronger French fleet. Washington meanwhile moved his entire army and the French army to Yorktown, where they forced the British to surrender in October 1781. King George III wanted to fight on even after losing two of his three combat armies but he lost control of [[Parliament]] and the American war was over. When the peace treaty was finalized in 1783, Washington triumphantly marched into New York City. Then to the astonishment of the world, Washington--by now the most famous man in the world -- stopped the [[Newburgh Conspiracy]], resigned his commission, and went home to his plantation, setting a standard of republican belief in civilian supremacy.

==Constitution==
Long before most of his contemporaries, Washington realized that independence could not be guaranteed without a standing army and that a nation strong enough to defend itself and to control the West could not exist without a central taxing power and a competent executive authority. All of those things, he admitted. ran directly counter to anti-tax, anti-centralizing sentiments that animated the Revolution. But they were necessary nonetheless, Washington insisted throughout the 1780s. Ellis (2004) concludes that Washington, succeeded in reconciling those contradictions and playing the difficult role of a semi-monarchical republican leader because he understood so well the proper use of power and could project "onto the national screen ... the same kind of controlling authority he had orchestrated within his own personality."<ref> Ellis 2004 p. 274</ref>

Because of the reputation he gained in the American Revolution, Washington was a logical choice for Virgina to send as a delegate to the [[Constitutional Convention]]. There, he was quickly chosen to chair the convention. While he barely ever spoke, the delegates have been said to have designed the [[President of the United States|Presidency]] assuming he would be the first President.

==First President==
[[File:Federal Hall Wall Street New York.jpg|thumb|Statue of George Washington, erected on the spot where he took his oath of office in 1789.]]
In [[United States presidential election, 1789|the first Presidential election]], George Washington was enthusiastically and unanimously elected. Reluctantly, he once more assented to the call of duty. This allowed him great freedom in setting up the customs, honors and daily functioning of the new government. Washington surrounded himself with a sophisticated and intelligent group of consultants and supporters and successfully delegated most of the responsibility for the conduct of their offices to those trusted colleagues. He practiced "leading by listening"<ref> Ellis (2004) p. 175</ref>.

One of Washington's greatest achievements was creating the form and style of the new government--a creation that has lasted to this day. The Constitution was vague about administrative details, and under the Confederation the national government was ineffective. Washington created a strong cabinet, with departments of State (foreign affairs), Treasury, War (military and naval affairs), along with an Attorney General. His style was formal but avoided the elaborate ceremonies and costumes of European courts. Washington consulted with his cabinet, but made the decisions himself. He served as his own chief of staff and kept a very small presidential staff in New York City (which was the national capital until it moved to Philadelphia in 1790). He ignored vice president [[John Adams]].

As president Washington employed careful restraint in exercising executive power (to prevent a backlash against centralization), and practiced calculated postponement of potentially lethal issues such as foreign war or ending slavery. His was restrained regarding such issues as the power of the Supreme Court and the abolition of slavery (he quietly favored gradual emancipation), and his absence from early pronouncements in favor of Hamilton's financial plans, allowed him to develop both a nation and an office that appeared above the day-to-day political battles. However, he played a leading role in the struggle to locate the permanent national capital in the District of Columbia and in making military and foreign policy. He believed America's future interests did not depend on Europe but on the people and lands to the nation's west. Washington's vision led to a restrained but effective use of the power of the executive office and the foundations for a strong national government.<ref> Ellis, "Inventing the Presidency." ''American Heritage'' 2004 </ref>

===Hamiltonian policies===
By far the most important innovations came from Treasury Secretary [[Alexander Hamilton]]. Washington gave strong support to Hamilton's successful programs, all approved by Congress, to take over the state debts, to fund the new national debt through a tariff on imports, and to create a national bank, the first Bank of the United States. [[Thomas Jefferson]], the Secretary of State, opposed all these programs but was defeated. Hamilton set up a national network of supporters that became the [[Federalist Party]]. Washington never joined the party, but he supported most of its policies and became its iconic symbol. Jefferson and Madison set up the rival Republican Party (called by historians the [[Democratic-Republican Party]]), and both parties set up newspapers that engaged in nasty invective. By his second term, Washington had become the target of intense attacks from the Jeffersonian Republicans. They first portrayed him as an unwitting tool of Hamilton, but later realized that he actually did support Federalist policies<ref>''America Afire: Jefferson, Adams, and the Revolutionary Election of 1800''. Bernard A. Weisberger.</ref>.

====Whiskey Rebellion, 1794====
Washington decided on decisive action to suppress the [[Whiskey Rebellion]], in which angry farmers in western Pennsylvania were protesting the new federal tax on whiskey. He called on governors to supply militia units, which they did. Washington rode at the head of a strong army into Pennsylvania and the rebellion collapsed without a confrontation.

===French Revolution===
Washington had not traveled outside the U.S. (apart from a brief visit to Bermuda), and paid little attention to European affairs. When the French Revolution led to war in 1793 between Britain (America's leading trading partner), and France (the old ally, with a treaty still in effect), Washington and his cabinet decided on a policy of neutrality. Washington supported the [[Jay's Treaty]], designed by Hamilton to avoid war with Britain and encourage commerce. The Jeffersonians vehemently opposed the treaty, but Washington's support proved decisive, and the U.S. and Britain were on friendly terms for a decade.

===Farewell Address===
Washington reluctantly served a second term, beginning in 1793, but by 1796 he was exhausted and insisted on not running again. (Since then, no President except [[Theodore Roosevelt]] and [[Franklin Roosevelt]] has ever tried for a third term; the [[Twenty-Second Amendment]] makes this two-term limit into law.) His [[Farewell Address]], partly drafted by Hamilton and Jefferson, remains a classic statement of republicanism, calling on Americans to practice civic virtue and avoid alliances with the warring parties in Europe.

===Retirement and death: 1797-99===
Washington returned to his beloved Mount Vernon, but his health continued to decline. In 1798 he accepted appointment as nominal head of a new national army designed to fight the French in a threatened war. (President [[John Adams]] chose him as the one man who would command respect from all factions.) His role was nominal, as Hamilton was in effective command.

Washington died in 1799 from acute epiglottitis during an influenza epidemic. Attending physicians could not agree whether his condition was cynanche, an inflammation of the throat that was believed to require powerful remedies, or something that would require less radical therapeutic interventions than those his physicians had prescribed.<ref>Ben Cohen, Ben. "The Death of George Washington (1732-99) and the History of Cynanche." ''Journal of Medical Biography'' 2005 13(4): 225-231. Issn: 0967-7720 </ref>

==Family and personality==
[[File:Savage The Washington Family.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The Washington Family, 1796 by [[Edward Savage]].]]
Although he had no children, Washington enjoyed a happy family life and especially enjoyed management of his tobacco plantation.

As Henriques (2006) stresses, Washington was driven by a lifelong quest for fame. He zealously guarded his reputation and took great care to ensure that he always acted properly and that he received due acknowledgment for his propriety. Washington prided himself on his honorable actions and was inordinately sensitive to criticism. Ellis (2004) stresses that Washington learned to discipline his emotions as an essential survival skill while facing dangers as a young officer in the Seven Year's War. That capacity for self-control, outwardly manifested in his famous aloofness, served Washington well again during the Revolution, not only by insulating him from criticism, but also by enabling him to curb his ambitions sufficiently to give up power at the end of the war. This earned him the universally honorable reputation that he so ardently desired. Washington was compared, in his willing surrender of power to the Roman leader [[Cincinnatus]], a comparison which drew worldwide attention and acclaim, even in Britain, the nation defeated under his leadership.<ref>For Lord Byron's poem on the subject, hailing Washington as "the first, the last, the best, the Cincinnatus of the West," see http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/2001/byron0101.html.</ref>

===Slavery===
Critics argue that Washington's status as a slaveholder, his treatment of his slaves, and his condoning of the institution of slavery besmirch his reputation as the "father of our country." Washington's stay at the President's House in Philadelphia was similarly colored by slavery - nine slaves resided both in the house and in adjacent slave quarters. As a slaveholder, Washington personally struggled to balance the moral injustice of the institution with harsh realities, such as the fact that his own slaves were intermarried with those of his wife, whom he could not legally free. In his will, Washington emancipated his 123 slaves and provided financial support for the elderly and vocational training for the young. He acted in part to remove the only stain on his carefully cultivated reputation.

==Christianity==
[[Image:W-pray.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''"I was riding with Mr. Potts near to the Valley Forge where the army lay during the war of ye Revolution, when Mr. Potts said, 'Do you see that woods & that plain? There laid the army of Washington. It was a most distressing time of ye war, and all were for giving up the Ship but that great and good man. In that woods (pointing to a close in view) I heard a plaintive sound as of a man at prayer.... To my astonishment I saw the great George Washington on his knees alone, with his sword on one side and his cocked hat on the other. He was at Prayer to the God of the Armies, beseeching to interpose with his Divine aid, as it was ye Crisis & the cause of the country, of humanity & of the world. Such a prayer I never heard from the lips of man. "''<ref> From ''Diary and Remembrances,'' by Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden (1770-1851), who received it from an eyewitness to the scene, Valley Forge resident Isaac Potts</ref>.]]
Washington was a practicing Christian who frequently attended services of several denominations and took seriously his responsibilities as vestryman of his Anglican parish. Washington frequently invoked God and commanded that chaplains be included in every regiment:

<blockquote>"The General hopes and trusts, that every officer and man, will endeavor so to live, and act, as becomes a Christian Soldier, defending the dearest Rights and Liberties of his country."<ref>http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-02-22&view=View</ref></blockquote>

Washington declared in his Inaugural Address:

<blockquote>"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of Providential agency."<ref>''Id.''</ref></blockquote> Comments such as this one have led some modern historians to conclude that Washington was more a deist than a Christian.

Washington told a delegation of Indians: <blockquote>"You do well to wish to learn our arts and way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ... Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention.<ref>Original Intent, [[David Barton]], 2004, Pg. 168</ref></blockquote>

Washington declared in his Farewell Address: <blockquote>"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." <ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r106:4:./temp/~r1068i99iE:e2427: Reading of Washington's Farewell Address -- (Senate - February 22, 2000)]</ref></blockquote>

He began his last will and testament, "In the name of God, Amen".

Washington cherished his Bible so much that he includes the following sentence in his will "To the Reverend, now Bryan, Lord Fairfax, I give a Bible in three large folio volumes, with notes, presented to me by the Right Reverend Thomas Wilson" <ref>[http://www.ashbrook.org/library/18/washington/will.html Last Will and Testament] Ashbrook Center</ref>

==Freemason==
On November 4, 1752, Washington was initiated into Freemasonry at Fredricksburg Lodge, Fredricksburg, Virginia. He was passed and raised at the same lodge, becoming a Master Mason on August 4, 1753. He later served as Worshipful Master of Alexandria Lodge No. 22 in Alexandria, Virginia. Upon his death in 1799, he was given a Masonic funeral at his wife's request.<ref>http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/washington_g/washington_g.html</ref>

==Parson Weems And The Cherry Tree Story==
In 1809, Mason Locke Weems (1756-1825), usually referred to as "Parson Weems," published a book entitled ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' This book contained many fanciful stories and half-truths, intended to present Washington as a larger-than-life figure. Perhaps the most famous passage in it is Weems' recounting of a story which he attributed to an unnamed "aged lady, who was a distant relative [of Washington], and, when a girl, spent much of her time in the [Washington] family:"

:"When George," said she, "was about six years old, he was made the wealthy master of a hatchet of which, like most little boys, he was immoderately fond, and was constantly going about chopping everything that came in his way. One day, in the garden, where he often amused himself hacking his mother's pea-sticks, he unluckily tried the edge of his hatchet on the body of a beautiful young English cherry-tree, which he barked so terribly, that I don't believe the tree ever got the better of it. The next morning the old gentleman, finding out what had befallen his tree, which, by the by, was a great favorite, came into the house; and with much warmth asked for the mischievous author, declaring at the same time, that he would not have taken five guineas for his tree. Nobody could tell him anything about it. Presently George and his hatchet made their appearance. "George," said his father," do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry tree yonder in the garden?" This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."—"Run to my arms, you dearest boy," cried his father in transports, "run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."<ref>British spellings are as they appear in the original text.</ref><ref>Weems, George Mason (1918), ''History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits of General George Washington.'' [http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html Chapter 2: Birth and Education], online at University of Virginia]</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC22316477&id=6tc56rgYE1YC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&dq=mason+locke+weems&as_brr=1#PPP13,M1 The Life of George Washington] with Curious Anecdotes Equally Honorable to Himself, and Exemplary to his Young Countrymen. 1837, facsimile page images at Google Books</ref>

(Notice that Weems did not represent Washington as calling it "my ''little'' hatchet;" that appears to be a "familiar misquotation.")
==Greatness==
Surveys of scholars always rank Washington as one of the two or three greatest presidents--with [[Abraham Lincoln]] his main competition.

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Washington was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 1st, with a mean score of 4.92 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

[[Image:Trumbull G. Washington.jpg|right|200px|thumb|''George Washington'', by [[John Trumbull]]]]

==Speeches from George Washington==
*[[George Washington's First Inaugural Speech]]
*[[George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress]]
*[[George Washington's Second Inaugural Address]]
*[[George Washington's Farewell Address]]
==Quotes from George Washington==
*"The freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter." (1783)<ref> To THE OFFICERS OF THE ARMY, Head Quarters, Newburgh, March 15, 1783, from ''The writings of George Washington from the original manuscript sources, '' ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, (Washington: U.S. GPO, 1931-1944)26: 224</ref>

*"Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." (1796)<ref> ("FAREWELL ADDRESS" in ''Writings,'' 35:229.</ref>

*"There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."<ref> To the Secretary of State, in ''Writings,''34:266. </ref>

*"There is no such thing as coincidence. God wills the world according to his design." (1773)<ref> From The Diaries of George Washington, 1773)</ref>

*"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." (1789)<ref> First Inaugural Address</ref>

*"But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." (1796)<ref>(Farewell Address; September 19, 1796</ref>

*"Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government."<ref> To Henry Lee, Oct. 31, 1786 [http://books.google.com/books?id=5CHqDr6CJLsC&pg=PA204&dq=%22are+unfit+for+their+own+%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&num=30&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA204,M1 online p 202-3[</ref>

*"Government is not [[reason]]; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."<ref> [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26552 The War on Reason]</ref>

''„Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.“'' [http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/intro.html The Papers of George Washington, Documents, The Farewell Address, page 20]

 
----

== Also See ==

*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]

== External Links ==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html White House biography]
*[http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/index.html Papers of George Washington at the University of Virginia]
*[http://www.livingtrustnetwork.com/content/lwt/wills/washingtonwill.php Last will and testament]
*[http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/gwlife/ Text of the 1807 biography by David Ramsey]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html White House biography]
*[http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/ PBS biography]
*[http://georgewashington.si.edu/ Smithsonian Institute biography]
*[http://www.mountvernon.org/ George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate]
*[http://www.ipl.org/div/potus/gwashington.html Internet Public Library, list of links]
*[http://gw.ffc.navy.mil/ USS ''George Washington'' CVN-73]
*[http://www.nps.gov/wamo/historyculture/index.htm WASHINGTON MONUMENT] the 125th anniversary of the monument's completion and dedication.

==Bibliography==
===Interpretations===
* Cunliffe, Marcus. ''Washington: Man and Monument'' (1958),
* Ellis, Joseph J. ''His Excellency: George Washington'' (2004), by Pulitzer prize winner
* Ellis, Joseph J. "Inventing the Presidency." ''American Heritage'' 2004 55(5): 42-48, 50, 52-53. Issn: 0002-8738 Fulltext: online at Ebsco.
* Henriques, Peter R. ''Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.'' (2006).
* Higginbotham, Don. ''George Washington: Uniting a Nation'' (2002)
* Higginbotham, Don, ed. ''George Washington Reconsidered''. (2001). 336 pp.
* Wood, Gordon S. "The Greatness of George Washington." ''Virginia Quarterly Review'' 1992 68(2): 189-207. Issn: 0042-675x Fulltext: in Ebsco

===Biographies===
* Alden, John R. ''George Washington: A Biography'' (1984)
* Ferling, John E. ''The First of Men: A Life of George Washington'' (1988)
* Flexner, James Thomas. ''Washington: The Indispensable Man'' (1974). short version of Flexner, ''George Washington,'' 4 vols. (1965–1972). [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98849444 vol 1 online, 1732-1775]
* Freeman, Douglas Southall, ''George Washington,'' 7 vols. (1948–1957); Pulitzer prize; a one-volume condensed version appeared in 1968 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=62946671 vol 1 online]
===Military===
* Alden, John Richard. ''A History of the American Revolution'' (1969).
* Bodle, Wayne. ''Valley Forge Winter: Civilians and Soldiers in War'' (2002)
* Buchanan, John. ''The Road to Valley Forge: How Washington Built the Army That Won the Revolution'' (2004) 368 pp.. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=106756208 online edition]
* Fischer, David Hackett. ''Washington's Crossing'' (2004), Pulitzer prize winner; study of 1776-77 [http://blog.oup.com/2006/02/washingtons_cro online excerpt]
* Higginbotham, Don. ''George Washington and the American Military Tradition'' (1985);
* Higginbotham, Don. ''The War of American Independence: Military Attitudes, Policies, and Practice, 1763–1789'' (1971). an analytical history of the war
* Lengel, Edward G. ''General George Washington: A Military Life.'' (2005). 450 pp
* McCullough, David. ''1776.'' 386 pp.
* Reed, John F. ''Campaign to Valley Forge: July 1, 1777–December 19, 1777'' (1965)
* Royster, Charles. ''A Revolutionary People at War: The Continental Army and American Character, 1775–1783'' (1979)
* Taaffe, Stephen R. ''The Philadelphia Campaign, 1777–1778'' (2003).
* Ward, Christopher. ''The War of the Revolution,'' 2 vols., 1952, a good narrative of all the major battles.
* Wrong, George M. ''Washington and His Comrades in Arms: A Chronicle of the War of Independence'' (1921) by a Canadian scholar [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2704 online edition]
* ''West Point Atlas'' [http://www.military.com/Resources/HistorySubmittedFileView?file=history_americanrevolution_maps.htm online version]; the maps are public domain and not copyrighted

[[Image:Washington1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|print from 1790s]]

===Political===
* Bassett, John Spencer. ''The Federalist System, 1789–1801'' (1906), survey of politics [http://books.google.com/books/pdf/____The_Federalist_System__1789_1801.pdf?vid=OCLC64662233&id=tcQtUqwJCT8C&output=pdf&sig=JEsIhspA7Iw74WFJWe0zHeZU57k online version],
* Chernow, Ron. <cite>Alexander Hamilton</cite>. Penguin Books, (2004) (ISBN 1-59420-009-2). detailed biography
* Cronin, Thomas F., ed. ''Inventing the American Presidency.'' U. Press of Kansas, 1989. 404 pp.
* Deconde, Alexander. ''Entangling Alliance: Politics & Diplomacy under George Washington'' (1958) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14354962 online edition]
* Elkins, Stanley M. and Eric McKitrick. ''The Age of Federalism.'' (1994) the leading scholarly history of the 1790s. [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-age-of-federalism-by-stanley-elkins-eric-mckitrick.jsp online edition]
* Fishman, Ethan M.; William D. Pederson, Mark J. Rozell, eds. ''George Washington'' (2001) essays by scholars
* Flaumenhaft; Harvey. ''The Effective Republic: Administration and Constitution in the Thought of Alexander Hamilton'' Duke University Press, 1992
* Grizzard, Frank E., Jr. ''George Washington: A Biographical Companion.'' ABC-CLIO, 2002. 436 pp. Comprehensive encyclopedia by leading scholar
* Gregg II, Gary L. and Matthew Spalding, eds. ''George Washington and the American Political Tradition.'' ISI (1999), essays by scholars
* Leibiger, Stuart. "Founding Friendship: George Washington, James Madison, and the Creation of the American Republic." U. Press of Virginia, 1999. 284 pp.
*McDonald, Forrest. ''The Presidency of George Washington''. 1988. Intellectual history showing Washington as exemplar of republicanism.
* Miller, John C. ''The Federalist Era, 1789-1801'' (1960), political survey of 1790s.
*Miller, John C. ''Alexander Hamilton: Portrait in Paradox'' (1959), full-length scholarly biography; [http://www.questia.com/library/book/alexander-hamilton-portrait-in-paradox-by-john-c-miller.jsp online edition]
* Morgan, Philip D. "'To Get Quit of Negroes': George Washington and Slavery.'' ''Journal of American Studies'' 2005 39(3): 403-429. Issn: 0021-8758
* Novak, Michael and Novak, Jana. ''Washington's God: Religion, Liberty, and the Father of Our Country.'' 2006. 282 pp. Rejects idea that Washington was a deist; he kept his religion private amd was probably a Christian
* Nordham, George W. ''The Age of Washington: George Washington's Presidency, 1789-1797.'' (1989).
* Pogue, Dennis J. "George Washington: Slave Master." ''American History'' 2004 38(6): 52-61. Issn: 1076-8866 Fulltext: in Ebsco, popular history
* Rozell, Mark J., William D. Pederson, Frank J. Williams. ''George Washington and the Origins of the American Presidency'' 2000 [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=26469391 online edition]
* Riccards, Michael P. ''A Republic, If You Can Keep It: The Foundations of the American Presidency, 1700-1800.'' (1987)
* Sharp, James. ''American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis.'' (1995), survey of politics in 1790s
* Smith, Robert W. ''Keeping the Republic: Ideology and Early American Diplomacy.'' (2004)
* Spalding, Matthew. "George Washington's Farewell Address." ''The Wilson Quarterly'' v20#4 (Autumn 1996) pp: 65+.
* White, Leonard D. ''The Federalists: A Study in Administrative History'' (1956), thorough analysis of the mechanics of government in 1790s
* Henry Wiencek. ''An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America,'' 2003. 404 pp.

==Primary sources==
* George Washington. ''Writings'' (1997) (Library of America edition) 440 letters and key documents, 1184pp [http://loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=5&section=toc online table of contents]
===Large editions===
Four major editions of Washington's writings have appeared:<ref> See [http://loa.org/volume.jsp?RequestID=5&section=notes] for details</ref>
* ''The Writings of George Washington,'' edited by Jared Sparks (12 volumes, 1833-37)
* ''The Writings of George Washington,'' edited by Worthington Chauncey Ford (14 volumes, 1889-93) [http://books.google.com/books?q=ford+%22Writings+of+George+Washington%2C%27%27&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=1 online volumes]
* ''The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799,'' edited by John C. Fitzpatrick (39 volumes, 1931-44). [http://www.questia.com online at [[Questia]]]
* ''The Papers of George Washington,'' edited by W. W. Abbot, Dorothy Twohig, and others, is ongoing; 48 volumes have been published since 1976, and when complete this edition will be the most comprehensive edition so far. See [http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/project/volumes/order.html] for details
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington Colonial Series'' Volumes 1-10 (complete)
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington Revolutionary War Series'' Volumes 1-16
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington Confederation Series'' Volumes 1-6 (complete)
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington: Presidential Series'' University Press of Virginia. Latest volume is Vol. 12: January-May 1793. ed by Philander D. Chase, 2005. 708 pp.
** Washington, George. ''The Papers of George Washington Retirement Series'' Volumes 1-4 (complete)
* ''Documents of the American Revolution, 1770-1783'' Ed. by K.G. Davies. 21 vols. (Irish Academic University Press, 1972), all the important British documents

== References ==

{{Reflist|2}}

{{USPresidents}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Washington, George}}

[[Category: American Revolutionary War Commanders]]
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Founding Fathers]]
[[Category:George Washington]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:British History]]
[[Category:American Revolution]]
[[Category:Republicanism]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Early National U.S.]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:Virginia]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]

Separation of church and state

2012-06-01T22:55:00Z

Muteswan: George Washington's counsel on this subject added

The term "'''separation of church and state'''" typically refers to a widely repeated [[liberal]] falsehood about the [[Establishment clause|Establishment Clause]] of the [[First Amendment]] of the [[United States Constitution]], which actually states:
{{cquote|'''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....'''<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti 1st Amendment of the US Constitution]</ref>}}

That is, the term "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the First Amendment, unlike rights explicitly protected therein, such as [[freedom of speech]], [[freedom of the press]], and [[freedom of expressive association]]. Though absent from the Constitution, "separation of church and state" is seen as being derived from it, and which is interpreted by many liberal law professors and some misguided judges to exclude religion from government by declaring that church and state must be kept separate to an extreme degree.<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Lemon v. Kurtzman]].</ref> Christian Roger Williams, founder of [[Rhode Island]] did use the phrase,<ref>Segers and Jelen, ''Wall of Separation?'', pp74-75</ref><ref>http://www.lawandliberty.org/chur_sta.htm</ref> in seeking protection from state interference in religion, and in opposition to the church acting as the state in punishing dissenters. Later, in 1802 President [[Thomas Jefferson]] would use the phrase, "wall of separation between Church and State", with like intent, but apparently with some political motivation.<ref>http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html</ref>

A phrase close to "separation of church and state", but used for malevolent purposes and expanded to name education, does appear in Article 52 of the constitution of the Soviet Union (1977): "In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."<ref>http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap06</ref>

[[Conservative]]s have criticized the liberal interpretation as being without justification in the text or meaning of the [[First Amendment]].<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/focus/secularization.html</ref><ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g004.html</ref> In recent years the Supreme Court has shifted from a high wall of "separation" to somewhat of an "accommodation" of religion, by stressing the importance of the [[Free Exercise clause|Free Exercise Clause]].

Since no-one can possibly speak with more authority on this subject than [[George Washington]] himself, here is what he said <ref>http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/farewell/intro.html The Papers of George Washington, Documents, The Farewell Address, page 20</ref> in the Farewell Address to the Congress and to the people of America; and his guidance deserves to be put in front of all the others‘ opinions:

''„Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure--reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. 'Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.“''

In contrast to official pervasive acknowledgment of God (mentioned in all 50 state constitutions</ref><ref>http://patriotpost.us/reference/50-state-constitutions-on-god/</ref>) and the place the Bible historically had in government, jurisprudence <ref>[http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and-the-culture/the-bible-and-government The Bible and Government]</ref> and in over 300 years of American education<ref>[http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Education_in_the_United_States Education in the United_States]</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/CauseEffect.html CAUSE AND EFFECTS: THE BIBLE AND EDUCATION]</ref> and the status therein of Christian faith in 1962 when Engel v. Vitale case was decided, (when an estimated 75 percent of the school systems in the South had religious services and Bible readings<ref>Colliers 1961 Yearbook p. 224</ref>), are some see court decisions in the last 60 years which some see resulting in Christian faith being functionally supplanted by secularist ideology and the religion of non-theistic [[Secular Humanism]].<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/neutral.html Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest, ''Can Public Schools Be Religiously Neutral?''] Leadership U.</ref>

Donald Closson comments that,
{{cquote|Some administrators, reacting to the heated debate surrounding public expressions of faith, have sought to create a neutral environment by excluding any reference to religious ideas or even ideas that might have a religious origin. The result has often been to create an environment hostile to belief, precisely what the Supreme Court has argued against in its cases which restricted practices of worship in the schools such as school-led prayer and Scripture reading.<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/st-rts.html Student Rights, Probe Ministries]</ref>}}

Rulings such as Marsh v. Chamber (1983), which affirm prayer in legislative and judicial settings, based upon established positive practice as well as the age of hearers, stands somewhat in contrast with the modern Court's rulings on state-sponsored prayer in schools, though they both have substantial historicity.

The liberal interpretation depends upon a traditional, formal definition of religion, especially when it pertains to pray or the use of the Bible, versus a less substantial ideology such as [[Secular Humanism]] that seeks "separation of church '''from''' state", as well as the presumption that the state can be almost absolutely separate from the former and its distinctive morality, and that the overall history of church/state relations for almost 150 years did not manifest the Founder's interpretation of the First Amendment, but was in violation of it.

==Origins==

[[Roger Williams]], the [[Puritan]] founder of [[Rhode Island]], had been expelled from both England and Massachusetts for his religious beliefs. Williams' ideas on liberty grew out of his Puritanism; the key to his thought is his idea of divine sovereignty, which he believed to be checked in some measure by every restriction laid on the church by the State. He sought what he termed a "'''wall of separation'''" between church and state to protect the church and divine sovereignty. He was nearly unique in his approach.

[[John Locke]], the English political philosopher who influenced the Founding Fathers, was influenced by the same Puritan milieu which shaped Williams,{{fact}} but he shifted the argument to a [[Humanism|humanistic]] base; instead of being concerned about the State not giving proper allegiance to God, he was concerned that the State would not allow people full freedom in the exercise of certain inalienable rights. The writings of both [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]] and [[James Madison|Madison]] reflect the Lockean orientation.

Among dissenters supporting religious freedom were Baptists [[John Leland]] and [[Isaac Backus]]. Backus appealed to Enlightenment figures in his political pamphlets supporting separation, but the Revolutionary Era was generally unaware of Williams and of his theological defense of religious freedom.<ref> Leroy Moore, , Jr. Religious Liberty: Roger Williams and the Revolutionary Era. Church History 1965 34(1): 57-76. 0009-6407 </ref>

By the 1770s the [[Baptists]] in colonial America took the lead in calling for the separation of church and state, especially in Virginia where the [[Anglican]] Church was supported by tax revenues and had a role in local government. They fought in the period 1775-1810 for the disestablishment of the Anglican church and freedom of religion for all citizens. Three doctrines served as the foundation for the Baptist position: the nature of salvation, the nature of the church, and a belief in the necessity for the separation of civil and ecclesiastical authority. Baptists did not achieve separation of church and state alone (for the active aid of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[James Madison]] was also a considerable factor), but did serve as a constant reminder of the necessity of securing what they believed to be the inalienable rights of men.<ref> Jesse C. Green, Jr. "The Early Virginia Argument for Separation of Church and State" ''Baptist History and Heritage'' 1976 11(1): 16-26. 0005-5719 </ref>

No other American clergyman was more conspicuous or influential in public affairs in the Revolutionary years and immediately thereafter than [[John Witherspoon]], President of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton). Witherspoon also served in the New Jersey Legislature and the Continental Congress, and was a signatory to the Declaration of Independence. In his lectures to students, Witherspoon showed himself "in all essentials an exponent of John Locke's views on government and toleration." When the American Presbyterian Church was organized in 1786, Witherspoon drafted the preface to the new "Form of Government." In it he asserted the universal inalienable right of private judgment in religion and repudiated special aid to churches by civil power, thus reaffirming the position taken by the colonial Presbyterian Church in 1729 in adopting the [[Westminster Confession of Faith]] with a declaratory statement rejecting any State control over the synods as well as any power of the civil government "to persecute any for their religion." The primary concern of Witherspoon and the Presbyterian Church was clearly religious liberty; separation of church and state was valued as a means to that end.<ref>John Hastings Nichols, "John Witherspoon on Church and State" ''Journal of Presbyterian History'' 1964 42(3): 166-174. 0022-3883 </ref>

===No religious test===

The Founding Fathers had also included another provision for separating the undue influence of religion from both the federal and the state governments, which was that one could not be disqualified from office on the basis of one's religious beliefs. Article VI of the Constitution states:
{{cquote|The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.}}

==Interpretations==

===Jefferson and Adams===

Jefferson, who strongly believed that politically powerful churches in Europe were a great evil, and was strongly opposed to government compulsion in religious matters, reintroduced the phrase "'''a wall of separation'''" as President in 1802 in letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut.

Like most states at that time, Connecticut had its own state church (Congregationalism) which they were forced to support. The Danbury Baptists therefore wrote to Anti-Federalist President Thomas Jefferson in October 7, 1801. In Jefferson's response to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he stated,
{{cquote|...Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative 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...I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem.<ref>http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html</ref>}}

In a letter to Samuel Miller, Jefferson also wrote, "Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far is it can be in any human authority."<ref>Letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808</ref><ref>http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qjeffson.htm</ref>

In 1998, the [[FBI]]’s crime lab examined Jefferson's letter, uncovering words deleted by the president (nearly 30 percent of the draft) prior to publication. This, along with other evidence, indicates that Jefferson’s pledge to separate church and state was at least partly political motivated.

James H. Hutson, head of the library’s manuscripts collection, stated, "It will be of considerable interest in assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt of enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed."<ref>http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html</ref>

Jefferson’s letter and the FBI’s restoration work are among the items in an exhibit at the Library of Congress called, "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic." The exhibit also notes that Jefferson began to attend worship services held at the House of Representatives two days after writing the letter, and that he permitted regular worship services to be held there, a practice that continued until after the Civil War, with preachers from every Protestant denomination appearing there. The Library of Congress exhibit records that
<blockquote>
As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience."...In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government. <ref>[http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html ''Religion and the Founding of the American Republic'', part 4]</ref><ref>FBI works sheds new light on famous Jefferson pledge'', Carl Hartman Associated Press, Rocky Mountain News (Denver, CO), June 7, 1998</ref>
</blockquote>

[[David Barton]], Founder and President of [[WallBuilders]], states that Jefferson voted that the Capitol building would also serve as a church building, praised the use of a local courthouse as a meeting place for Christian services, urged local governments to make land available specifically for Christian purposes, set aside government lands for the sole use of religious groups, assured a Christian religious school that it would receive “the patronage of the government”, proposed that the Great Seal of the United States depict a story from the Bible and include the word “God” in its motto, and agreed to provide money for a church building and support of clergy. And that like support of religion by the federal government militates against the extreme separatist position.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/common/founderspubrelig.html </ref>

In contrast, separatists place weight upon statements by Jefferson that stress the importance of government not supporting religion, and his refusal as President to issue proclamations of Thanksgiving and prayer, as his Federalist predecessors George Washington and John Adams did. In the light of the conflict, some see Jefferson as allowing some government promotion of religion by the government "for the health of the republic (the political purpose of religion) versus promoting it for the salvation of people's souls."<ref>http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Dreisbach104.htm</ref>

While Jefferson's terminology helped define the language of the debate, it did not constitute a precedent in law. However the Supreme Court adopted this metaphor and interpretation in the 1947 case, [[Everson v. Board of Education]]. The leader of the new interpretation was Justice [[Hugo Black]].<ref>Barbara A. Perry, "Justice Hugo Black and the 'Wall of Separation between Church and State'" ''Journal of Church and State'' 1989 31(1): 55-72. </ref>

Jefferson and Madison insisted that a necessary condition for political freedom was religious freedom, and they insisted on the disestablishment of the Anglican, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches in the new states. That view, however, and the Jeffersonian notion that an impenetrable wall of separation must exist between church and state, has been called into question or attacked by such Supreme Court decisions as Sherbert v. Verner (1963), Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (1990), and Boerne v. P. F. Flores (1993), which question the acceptance of religious pluralism, one of the great achievements of the American "experiment." <ref> Edwin S. Gaustad, "Thomas Jefferson, Religious Freedom, and the Supreme Court." ''Church History'' 1998 67(4): 682-694. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3169848 in JSTOR]</ref>

===Northwest Ordinance - importance of religion in education===

Under the [[Articles of Confederation]] government, which preceded the ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Congress passed the [[Northwest Ordinance]] of 1787, a law designed to set up the modern state of [[Ohio]]. Article 3 reads as follows:

<blockquote>Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.<ref>http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html</ref></blockquote>

Article 1 of the Ordinance reads:

<blockquote>No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.<ref>http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html</ref></blockquote>

This law provides further proof that the "separation of Church and State" promoted by liberals and atheists today does not match the view of the Founding Fathers.

==="Not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"===

In countering the evidence that the Founders overall showed official favor to Christianity, part of the [[Treaty of Tripoli]] is invoked by those who seek to minimize any such sanction. One version of Article 11 of this Treaty, drafted during [[George Washington|Washington]]'s presidency and ratified by unanimous vote of the Senate in 1797 and signed by President [[John Adams]], states:
{{cquote|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 (Muslims), -and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation (Islamic), it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.] Ratified in 1796 and again in 1797. Some other treaties with Muslim powers did mention God.</ref>}}

Critics of the extreme separation concept that uses this treaty argue that Article 11 was only one part of a larger treaty, in which it was essential that a distinction be made between the United States and the "Christian powers" and their state churches which had persecuted Muslim nations, as well as the American colonists; also by noting that the statement at issue pertained to the nature of the government and not the nation, which was characterized as being Christian.<ref>[http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125 David Barton, Treaty of Tripoli]</ref><ref>[http://hubpages.com/hub/Tempest-in-a-Treaty-Does-the-Treaty-of-Tripoli-Support-a-Secular-America Tempest in a Treaty: Does the Treaty of Tripoli Support a Secular America?]</ref> as attested to by many of the Founders.<ref>[http://www.praydailyamerica.com/americanhistory.html American History Quotes About God and the Bible]</ref> The significance of differences between the English and Arabic versions of the Treaty are also debated.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html Tektonics.org, On Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli]</ref><ref>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/barmenu.asp</ref><ref>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796e.asp</ref> It is also argued that, in distinction to Congress, there is great latitude for the states in the matter of religion.

In addition, numerous other documents and statements are invoked in countering the use of the Tripoli declaration to assert that America was not overall a Christian nation, or that the Christian faith was not distinctly favored by the Founders.<ref>http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Hst/US/USXn-Congress.htm </ref><ref>http://www.contenderministries.org/law/linkpages/09052003hr1547text.php</ref>

It must be noted that the Treaty of Tripoli was a temporary document, is no longer in effect, and has no bearing on the Constitution itself as the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", meaning that no other law, treaty or judicial ruling can supersede it.

===Separating the Church from the State's influence===

Like many political doctrines, the separation of church and state is a double-edged sword. If religion cannot influence government, nor can government influence religion. Accordingly, churches and religious organizations are kept from government intrusion with the highest deference to ecclesiastical matters. For example, Title VII contains a built-in exception for religious organizations.<ref>42 U.S.C. 2000(e)-(1).</ref> The provision has been construed to allow churches to handle their ministerial matters without government intrusion in any way.<ref>McClure v. Salvation Army.</ref> In this sense, separation of church and state is ''good'' for the church, as it ensures religious autonomy.

===Separating the State from sanctioning religion===

The view that the Establishment Clause must zealously guard against even an appearance of sanctioning any expression of a formal religion is manifest in many cases in the latter half of the 20th century. In ''Brandon v. Board of Education of Guilderland Central School District'' (1981), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals stated, "Our nation's elementary and secondary schools play a unique role in transmitting basic and fundamental values to our youth. To an impressionable student, even the mere appearance of secular involvement in religious activities might indicate that the state has placed its imprimatur on a particular religious creed. This symbolic inference is too dangerous to permit." Misconceptions over the appropriate roles of church and state learned during one's school years may never be corrected. As Alexander Pope noted, "Tis Education forms the common mind,/Just as the twig is bent, the tree's inclin'd." (Epistle to Lord Cobham).

However, while outlawing voluntary prayer during school hours in fear that this might be seen as state-sanctioned, the court went on to express official support for prayer, stating, "Introspective activity that seeks to strengthen the moral fibre of our nation's young adults deserves our support, but only in our role as private citizens. We hope that the "Students for Voluntary Prayer" can conduct their prayer meetings and religious discussions at another place and at different times."<ref>http://openjurist.org/635/f2d/971</ref>

===A Limit on federal power, not states===

The first clause of the first amendments states "Congress shall make no law.."; demonstrating that it is a restriction on laws that the Congress of the United States can pass. Nowhere does the constitution restrict State and Local Legislatures from passing any laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The 1940 decision of the Court to make the First Amendment applicable to the states is also objected to by some, arguing that when the First Amendment was ratified in 1791, its jurisdiction was limited to the Federal Government, a rule that lasted for 150 years.<ref>http://www.covenantnews.com/davidnew060919.htm</ref> Additionally, since the first amendment itself has no restrictions on the activities other two branches of government, the scope of this restriction can only apply to the State Legislatures. However liberal activist judges have expanded this restriction to every aspect of all levels of government activities and organizations, even though there the Constitution sole restriction is with the legislative body.

Preacher [[Pat Robertson]] has argued that the [[Establishment Clause]] was intended merely to prevent the Federal government from imposing a state religion, as two of the original 13 states already had their own official religion.<ref>From [http://www.patrobertson.com/Statesman/StatesRights.asp Pat Robertson "Restore States Rights and Public Morality" (1986)] </ref>
{{cquote|An established religion was a religion where the state paid the clergy and where there were civil liabilities to those who did not belong to that religion; where such things as marriages could only be performed with the blessing of a particular church; where, unless a person was a member thereof, he or she was denied the right to hold public office, etc. That's an established religion. All the people of the framers knew it was to take one sect and prefer it above another.

There were certain states at that time that had established religions. Massachusetts was a case in point. They had a state religion. And they didn't want this enormously powerful Congress to superimpose a religious system on their state system. To guarantee the states retained critical rights, the tenth amendment said, "All the power that is not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved for the states." The intent? The people, i.e. the states, have delegated power. They gave up some powers, but they did not give up all powers because they are sovereign states.

"But the courts have successfully, in the district court level, in the circuit court level, in the Supreme Court level, restricted the right of religious people to involve themselves in their faith. And in so doing, they have violated the time-honored customs of this country clearly intended by the framers of the Constitution.}}

Current judicial precedent agrees with Robertson as concerns the First Amendment, but holds that the Fourteenth Amendment extended its scope from Congress to the state legislatures, since freedom of religion can be classified as one of the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States" mentioned therein.

===Power of Supreme Court contested===

The concept of a supreme judiciary as the final arbiter in judicial matters, and which must be obeyed, is not unique to the United States, as such was instituted in ancient Israel, (Dt. 17:8-13) in its manifestly God-ordained theocracy. However, while the United States Supreme Court may interpret the constitutionality of laws or statutes, it is argued that the Constitution does not give the Court power to judge laws passed by Congress. The Court, under Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] in 1803, assigned itself that power, referred to as ''Judicial Review'', in Marbury vs. Madison, based upon its interpretation of the Constitution. It is understood by most that according to Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, [[Congress]] may declare that the Supreme Court is no longer authorized to hear challenges to the constitutionality of a particular law. <ref>http://www.pregnantpause.org/court/uncon.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTRIALS/conlaw/judicialrev.htm</ref>

Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist papers (#78) referred to the Supreme Court as the "least dangerous" branch of the government because it possessed neither the "power of the purse" (to fund itself) nor that of "the sword" (the executive power and the police and army).<ref>http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm</ref> <ref>http://www.krusch.com/real/suprememyth.html</ref>

However, leaving the interpretation of the Constitution to elected officials is also an issue.<ref>http://www.strictconstruction.org/fast-and-loose-with-the-constitution/</ref>

===Modern separation as an evolved concept===

Hamburger in his work ''The Separation of Church and State'' (2002), argues that the separation of church and state has no historical foundation in the First Amendment, the term being a catchphrase used by forces hostile to certain religions trying to limit their influence. He notes that 18th century Americans almost never invoked this principle. In addition, there was a distinction between "separation" and "disestablishment" - a distinction all the more significant because the Constitution's Religion Clauses do not mandate the separate of church and state, but they forbid the "establishment" of religion and guaranteed its "free exercise." <ref>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20020920_hamilton.html</ref>

Although Jefferson and others retrospectively claimed that the First Amendment separated church and state, separation only became an explicit part of American constitutional law much later. Hamburger makes the case that separation became a constitutional freedom largely through fear and prejudice; for example, Jefferson supported separation out of hostility to the Congregational clergy of New England who supported the [[Federalist Party]], and [[nativist]] Protestants (ranging from [[Know Nothings]] in the 19th century to the [[Ku Klux Klan]] in the 20th) adopted the principle of separation to restrict the role of Catholics in public life, for example by denying Catholic parochial schools State funding (see [[Blaine Amendments]]).

Gradually, nativist Protestants were joined in this stance by secularists, who feared that if religious organizations received any State support, it would start a slippery slope to theocracy. Eventually, a wide range of people called for separation, including anti-clericalists who feared ecclesiastical authority, particularly that of the Catholic Church, and hence felt religious liberty required a separation of church from state. American religious liberty was thus redefined and even transformed.

===State-sanctioned secularism as religion===

It is perceived by some that outlawing formal religion results in replacing it with a functional ideological equivalent. Secularity as a condition of a non-ecclesiastical state may be distinguished with secularism as an ideology, with key Supreme court decisions being used to infer state favor toward the nonreligious, resulting in a "religion-free education" which "indoctrinates" the young into viewing secularism as the only frame of reference.<ref>(liberal) Warren A. Nord, ''Religion and American Education: Rethinking a National Dilemma''</ref>

Enacting laws themselves is seen as an imposition of morality,<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/what_libertarians_misunderstan.html AmericanThinker.com, ''What Libertarians Misunderstand']',</ref> October 10, 2010 and Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest ask, ''Is a religiously neutral public school education an oxymoron?'', and see notable Supreme court Establishment Clause decisions (such as Engel v. Vatale, l962) as in essence creating "a legal fiction--a myth of religious neutrality." They argue that "Philosophy and religion blur when dealing with these basics, such as truth, while pointing to the ultimate questions and answers in life," and that, "Any discussion of a secular-religious distinction is self-refuting. For someone's values are always being advocated even in so called "neutral" settings."

Removing formal God (and morality) based religion from the public schools is seen to have the effect of supplanting it with [[Secular Humanism]]. This in turn promotes pantheism, the worship of nature with its [[evolution]]ary hypothesis, and the rejection of moral absolutes (especially those of the Bible), resulting in a dangerous ever-morphing morality and decline of beneficial [[moral decline|traditional morality]].<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/neutral.html</ref>

In support of this understanding, declarations by humanists such as John J. Dunphy, are often invoked:
<blockquote>
I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith...These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach,...The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism...''<ref>A Religion for a New Age'',The Humanist magazine’s January-February 1983</ref>
</blockquote>

Kussrow and Vannest argue that "since atheism is a religion under the establishment clause, (Malnak v. Yogi, l977), given the above facts, secular humanism must be considered a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment (Gove v. Mead School District, l985)", noting that "the American Humanist Association even has a religious tax exemption status approved by the Federal government."<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/neutral.html Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest, ''Can Public Schools Be Religiously Neutral?'']</ref> In ''United States v. Kauten'' (2d Cir. 1943), conscientious objector status was granted to Mathias Kauten, not due to his belief in God, but on the basis of his “religious conscience.”<ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/neutral.html Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest, ''Can Public Schools Be Religiously Neutral?'']</ref>

Other evidence indicates that U.S. courts have moved from a generally substantive definition of religion, in which the religion affirms a transcendent deity, to a functional definition of religion, which Secular Humanism has been defined by some courts to be. In the ''Torcaso v. Watkins'' case in 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions.

In the light of such, James Davison Hunter argues that,
<blockquote>
To be legally consistent the courts will either have to articulate a constitutional double standard or apply the functional definition of religion to the no establishment clause just as they have to the free exercise [clause]. The latter would mean that secularistic faiths and ideologies would be rigorously prohibited from receiving even indirect support from the state, which needless to say would have enormous implications for public education.<ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-g002.html ''Is the religion of Secular Humanism being taught in public school classrooms?'', o case, ...] www.christiananswers.net</ref>
</blockquote>

==Major U.S. Supreme court establishment cases==
What constitutes government establishment of religion,, as forbidden by the First Amendment has been a difficult and somewhat inconsistent matter, especially in the modern era. In ''Walz v. Tax Commissioner'' (1970), the Court noted that for "the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' It would later state that the "Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments."<ref>Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village v. Grumet, 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2494 (1994)</ref> <ref>http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/02.html#fsupp.3</ref>

* In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court rejected state statutes which provided state aid to church-related elementary and secondary schools, judging "the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion." In so doing, it conceded that "total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable." It then proposed that the constitutionality of such religious programs could be met if they met all of three conditions:

# It has a secular purpose
# It has a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
# It does not excessively entangle government with religion<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=403&invol=602</ref>

However, the Court appears not to have always bound itself to all 3 prongs of this test in future Establishment cases, with the second aspect being more stressed.

* In ''Everson v. Board of Education'' (1947), the [[Supreme court]] ruled that it was not unconstitutional for tax money to fund a bus fare program to get students to and from religious schools, which met the secular educational requirements which the state has power to impose. It noted that "parents might refuse to risk their children to the serious danger of traffic accidents going to and from parochial schools, the approaches to which were not protected by policemen. Similarly, parents might be reluctant to permit their children to attend schools which the state had cut off from such general government services as ordinary police and fire protection, connections for sewage disposal.."

However, the case was also notable for its statement by Chief Justice Black, who, writing the majority opinion, invoked the metaphor which Thomas Jefferson used in writing to the Danbury Baptists, declaring,
<blockquote>
The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.
</blockquote>

Justice Black also stated,
<blockquote>
“Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another....In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’”<ref>Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S at 15-16 (1947)</ref><ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#63</ref>
</blockquote>

* The next year (1948), in ''McCollum v. Board of Education'', the Court disallowed a public school program under which religious instruction was provided during the last period of the school day instead of secular subjects.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=333&invol=203</ref>

* The most significant challenge to the predominate historical understanding of the Establishment Clause occurred in 1962, almost 170 years after the adoption of the First Amendment (Dec. 15, 1701). In ''Engel v. Vitale'' the Supreme Court dealt with a required practice of a local New York school which began each school day by reading aloud the following prayer in the presence of the teacher: ''Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.'

Many other schools also did likewise, as such had been a historical practice since the beginning of schooling in America. However, the Court outlawed any government sanctioned prayer in schools, declared that "it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.''

Justice Black stated that "The Establishment Clause . . . is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not." Justice Stewart was alone in dissenting, contending that, "to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.''

* In 1963, in ''Abington School Dist. v. Schempp'', the Supreme Court outlawed public school requirements that each school day begin with selections readings from the Bible.

In this case the State argued that the object of the programs was the promotion of secular purposes, such as the expounding of moral values, the contradiction of the materialistic trends of the times, and the promotion of traditional institutions. The State also rightly contended that by forbidding Bible reading a ''religion of secularism'' would supplant it. However, the Court rejected all these contentions, stating that it was not preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.

* In ''Epperson v. Arkansas'' (1968), the Court rejected an Arkansas state statute which made it unlawful for any teacher in any state-supported educational institution "to teach the theory or doctrine that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals," or "to adopt or use in any such institution a textbook that teaches" the evolutionary theory.

* A notable exception to the trend of outlawing government sanction of religion occurred in Marsh v. Chambers (1983). In this case a clergyman who opened each session of the Nebraska state legislature with a prayer was paid by public funds. [[Atheist]] Senator Earnest Chambers found this intolerable and went to court to outlaw the practice. The District Court judged it was wrong to use public money to pay the preacher's salary, while the Appellate Court saw the prayer being offered as not permissible.

However, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the practice of beginning the legislative session with a prayer by a publicly funded chaplain was indeed constitutional. The Court's basis was the almost 200 year historicity of the use of chaplains in government, "ever since the First Congress drafted the First Amendment", a practice without adverse effect. In addition, it was stated that "because of the principles upon which the nation has developed, religion has become part of the fabric of society. The offering of the prayer is a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country."<ref>http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/court/mars_v_cham.html</ref>

The age of the participants was also a deciding factor, as it judged that state legislators, being adults, are ''presumably not readily susceptible to 'religious indoctrination' or 'peer pressure'''. Justice Brennan dissented, objecting that the all three aspects of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test had been violated.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=463&invol=783</ref>

* In ''Wallace v. Jaffree'' (1985), the Court disallowed an Alabama statute authorizing a 1-minute period of silence in all public schools ''for meditation or prayer''. This was rejected on the basis that the purpose of the legislation was to restore prayer to schools. Justice Rehnquist dissented, rejecting the interpretation that the First Amendment required strict neutrality between religion and ''irreligion,'' and instead confined the scope to a prohibition on establishing a national church, or otherwise favoring one particular religious group over another. Some other justices indicated that other state statutes which had simply authorized moments of silence would be constitutional.

* In 1987, the Court decided in ''Edwards v. Aguillard'', that a Louisiana statute mandating balanced treatment of ''creation-science'' and ''evolution-science'' in the public schools was unconstitutional, as the Legislators viewpoint that a supernatural created humankind was one that was religious, and thus it sought to discredit evolution "by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creation science.''

* In ''Lee v. Weisman'' (1992), the Court decided that school-sponsored, state-directed religious prayer (invocation), even if nonsectarian, at a high school commencement also violated the Establishment Clause.

* In 1981, in ''Widmar v. Vincent'' the Court ruled that religious groups were to have the same equal access to a public college's facilities as other ''noncurriculum'' related student groups, as this would further a secular purpose, would not constitute an impermissible benefit to religion. Later, in ''Westside Community Board of Educational v. Mergens'' (1990), these principles were also applied to public secondary schools as well, as it judged students were able to understand the school was accommodating, not affirming (as it effectively did for secularism), religious belief. Likewise, in ''Rosenberger v. University of Virginia'' (1995), the Court judged that student religious organizations were not to be excluded by public colleges from receiving benefits otherwise provided to a full range of student civic-type groups.

* In related equal access rulings, in ''Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District'' (1993), the Court determined that public schools may not exclude, on First Amendment grounds, religious groups from being given permission for after-hours use of school property which were otherwise available for non-religious social, civic, and recreational purposes. This was also seen to apply to Town Halls, etc. In 1995 the Court similarly ruled in ''Capitol Square Review Bd. v. Pinette'', that the government cannot deny access for non-government funded religious displays or gatherings in a traditional public forum on government property which was used for citizen speeches and unattended displays.<ref>http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/03.html</ref>

* In the 1995 decision in ''Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia'', the Court required the University of Virginia to fund a Christian student newspaper as it also funded secular student newspapers, with liberal justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer dissenting.<ref>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10270</ref>

* In ''Good News Club v. Milford Central School'' (2001), the Court majority ruled that a public school district violated the free speech rights of an [[Evangelical Christian]] group by preventing them from using school facilities after classes were over.<ref>http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010711.html </ref><ref>http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/99-2036.html</ref>

===Pledge of Allegiance===
''For more information, see the [[Pledge of Allegiance]]''

On June 14, 1954 President Eisenhower signed legislation by a [[Joint Resolution]] of Congress which added the phrase, "under God" to the [[Pledge of Allegiance]]. The impetus for this addition was the very real threat of [[atheistic]] [[Communism]]. A short senate report found that "one of the greatest differences between between the free world and and Communists [is] a belief in God". However, it was based upon the substantive Christian historicity of the [[United States]]. Eisenhower was motivated to sign the bill, and had recently heard the relatively [[liberal]] [[Supreme Court]] chief justice [[Earl Warren]] declare,
<blockquote>
Whether we look to the first Charter of Virginia ... or to the Charter of New England ... or to the Charter of Massachusetts Bay ... or to the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut ... the same objective is present ... a Christian land governed by Christian principles.
</blockquote>

In a recent ruling<ref>Newdow vs Rio Linda Union School District</ref> concerning the phrase, the usually liberal [[California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals]], ruled 2-1 that the use of the phrase "under God" in the [[Pledge of Allegiance]] was constitutional, reversing its 2002 decision. The Court stated (in part) that,

The phrase “under God” is a recognition of our Founder’s political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights. Thus, the Pledge is an endorsement of our form of government, not of religion or any particular sect...The Framers referred to the source of the people’s rights as the ‘Creator,’ the ‘Supreme Judge,’ and ‘Nature’s God.’ The Declaration of Independence, 1 U.S.C. § XLIII (1776). The name given to this unknowable, varied source was not crucial, but the source was a necessary prerequisite to the concept of limited government that formed the basis of our nation’s founding.” <ref>http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf pp. 52, 37</ref>

The Court noted in reference to the latter that in an “Address to the States, by the United States in Congress Assembled", drafted by a committee consisting of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and later Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth after the Revolutionary War, they expressed that the Revolutionary War was won for the rights of human nature, rights that had an “Author”:
{{cquote|Let it be remembered, finally, that it has ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature. By the blessings of the Author of these rights on the means exerted for their deference, they have prevailed against all opposition, and form the basis of thirteen independent States.}}

Despite the court's attempt to disassociate the use of "God" with affirmation of religion, the court recognized the Founders own recognition that religion was necessary for a limited democratic form of government.<ref>[http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=5fb80650-ed6f-48fc-aee8-0492147f431f&t=c TownHall.com, ''Liberal Ninth Circuit Praises Limited Government'']</ref>

In a separate case, the court ruled 3-0 that "In God We Trust" does not constitute an illegal endorsement of religion inscribed on national currency.

==Other cases==
On March 15, 2010, as a result of a lawsuit brought by a group of [[atheists]] and [[agnostics]] called the [[Freedom From Religion Foundation]], a U.S. District Judge in [[Wisconsin]] ruled that the annual [[National Day of Prayer]] is unconstitutional. The judge partly based her decision on the belief that atheists feel marginalized by the law.

The [[White House]] stated that regardless of the ruling, the president still "intends to recognize a National Day of Prayer."<ref>CBS news, April 16, 2010</ref>

[[Conservative]] legal experts disagreed with the ruling. Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel and dean of the [[Liberty University]] School of Law in Lynchburg, [[Virginia]] stated that "If the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, then the [[Constitution]] itself if unconstitutional.” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-[[Texas]]), himself a former judge, told CNSNews.com that "it was obvious" the federal judge "had not received a very good [[education]]" in [[American]] history.<ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64225 CNSNews.com, ''Legal Experts Blast Judge’s Decision''], Friday, April 16, 2010</ref> The ruling may be seen as another example of secular values displacing religious ones, and morally functioning as a religion itself, leading to [[moral decline]].

==See also==

*[[Religion and U.S. Government]]

==Further reading==
* Dreisbach, Daniel L. ''Thomas Jefferson and the wall of separation between Church and State'' (2002) Conservative examination of the issue [http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/Dreisbach104.htm Review]
* Gaustad, Edwin S. "Thomas Jefferson, Religious Freedom, and the Supreme Court." ''Church History'' 1998 67(4): 682-694. [http://www.jstor.org/stable/3169848 in JSTOR]
* Goldberg, George. ''Church, State and the Constitution.'' (1987), conservative attack on Supreme Court decisions; argues in favor of prayer in the public schools
*Guinness, Os. ''American Hour: A time of reckoning and and the once and future role of faith'' (1993) 468 pages
* Hamburger, Philip. ''Separation of church and state'' (2002) 514 pages
* Hammond, Phillip E. "American Church/State Jurisprudence from the Warren Court to the Rehnquist Court," ''Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,'' Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 455-464 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1388099 in JSTOR]
* Healey, Robert M. "Thomas Jefferson's 'Wall': Absolute or Serpentine?" ''Journal of Church and State'' 1988 30(3): 441-462, history of usage by Supreme Court
* Hutson, James H. at al. "Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists: A Controversy Rejoined." ''William and Mary Quarterly'' 1999 56(4): 775-824. a debate among leading historians; [http://www.jstor.org/stable/2674235 in JSTOR]
* Ivers, Gregg. ''To Build a Wall: American Jews and the Separation of Church and State.'' (1995). 272 pp. shows strong Jewish support for a high wall
* Jeynes, William. ''American educational history: school, society, and the common good.'' (2007) 469 pages. On how and why the American education system developed the way that it did.
* Kleeberg Irene Cumming. ''Separation of Church and State'' (1986), introduction at high school level.
* Levy Leonard W. ''The Establishment Clause.'' (1986) by leading historian
* McWhirter, Darien A. ''The Separation of Church and State'' (1994) 189pp; summary of the issues [http://www.questia.com/library/book/the-separation-of-church-and-state-by-darien-a-mcwhirter.jsp online edition]
* Monsma. Stephen V. and Soper, Christopher J. ''The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies'' (2008) 265 pages
* Reichley A. James. ''Religion in American Public Life.'' (1985), history of the relationship between religion and politics
* [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html ''Religion and the Founding of the American Republic''], Library of Congress Exhibition
* Segers, Mary C. and Jelen, Ted G. eds. ''A Wall of Separation?: Debating the Public Role of Religion.'' (1998). 191 pp.
* Sorauf, Frank J. ''The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State.'' (1976). 394 pp. by leading political scientist
* Stokes Anson Phelps, and Pfeffer Leo. ''Church and State in the United States.''(1964), famous classic.
* [http://www.questia.com/library/separation-of-church-and-state.jsp online books on Separation]
* Mark Weldon Whitten, Ph.D., ''The Myth of “The Myth of Church–State Separation'', (April 1996);[http://www.txbc.org/1996Journals/April%201996/Apr96TheMythOf.htm online article]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[category:political Terms]]
[[Category:First Amendment]]
[[category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]

Illegal immigration

2012-05-24T02:19:50Z

Muteswan: /* Moral issues */ Three obvious questions and one obvious remark

[[Image:Coleman - Arellano.jpg|thumb|The Rev. [[Oscar Carrasco]] and [[Elvira Arellano]]]]

'''Illegal immigration''' is the act of [[immigration|immigrating]] to a country without having the right to do so. A person who migrates without the legal right to do so is known as an [[illegal alien]].

__TOC__
==U.S.==
Illegal immigration has become a major issue in the [[United States]] in the 1980s, and continues to be a highly visible issue.

===Economic aspects===

Illegal immigrants pay sales taxes and gasoline taxes; most are too poor to pay income taxes. Many use fake Social Security numbers and pay Social Security taxes but are not eligible for any benefits. Many use tax-payer funded services such as health care and schools.

===Numbers of people===

Pew estimates about 12 million illegal immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2004.<ref>Higher estimates run to 20 million; [http://immigrationcounters.com/ see high estimate]</ref> However, many are afraid to use available services, such as domestic violence shelters, out of fear of deportation. Many illegals cannot speak English.

===Arguments favoring it===

====No one else wants those jobs anyway====
Illegal immigration is defended, saying that [[immigrants]] are simply coming to take [[unskilled job]]s that better educated Americans avoid, such as picking fruit and lettuce, making hotel beds and working in [[slaughterhouse]]s. One could just as easily argue, however, that these jobs in part only seem unappealing to many Americans because of their association with illegal immigrants.

====They need political asylum====
A small percentage come illegally to escape political oppression, as legal channels are not open to them.<ref>http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html immigration Usa</ref><ref>www.uscis.gov Immigration and Naturalization Services</ref><ref>www.dhs.gov Department of Homeland Security</ref> Marriage to a U.S. citizen does not automatically gain one citizenship. When Army Spc. Alex Jimenez was captured by terrorists in [[Iraq]], his wife was almost deported by the government. Strong public opinion allowed her to stay.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/20/national/main2956093.shtml Missing Soldier's Wife Faces Deportation]</ref>

===Where they come from===
[[Mexico]] is the source of the about half of the recent illegal immigrants to the United States. Most arrive legally and over-stay their visas. Others cross the border mostly through the desert southwest or less often by swimming across the [[Rio Grande]]. [[Canada]] is another large source. Currently estimates show around 70,000 undocumented Canadian workers work in the U.S. They come over from the border with [[Canada]] along the northern part of the United States which is not nearly as secure as the southern border with [[Mexico]].
====Dispute with Mexico====
The United States receives constant criticism from the Mexican government for its efforts to curb illegal immigration. And United States officials criticize Mexican officials for passing out handbooks on how to cross the border, saying Mexico is trying to avoid political and governmental reforms at home by encouraging its citizens to leave.

===Legal aspects===
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
-Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
-Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
-Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

Illegal entry is not a [[misdemeanor]] in U.S. law, at the level of [[speeding]]. Those who are caught are usually promptly expelled from the country without penalty. However, multiple illegal entries can lead to [[felony]] convictions.

<blockquote>
Legislative leaders in at least half a dozen American states say they will propose bills similar to a controversial law to fight illegal immigration that was adopted by [[Arizona]] last spring, even though a federal court has suspended central provisions of that statute. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01immig.html?_r=1&hp]
</blockquote>

====Mexico and Mexicans====
Ironically, one of Mexico's harshest criticisms was a plan by the United States to make illegal immigration a felony offense, which would impose harsher penalties on illegal Mexican immigrants. Mexico's own laws make illegal immigration a felony offense in that country.[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1602610/posts][http://www.vdare.com/awall/060518_memo.htm]

Many Mexicans have to come to the United States to work because for many years the Mexican government was [[socialist]], being under the control of the [[Institutional Revolutionary Party]], which limited [[economic opportunity]] and [[economic growth|growth]]. Before 2001 there was frequent movement across the border. It was common to work in summer jobs in the U.S. and spend the winter in Mexico. Border security since then has become much stricter, and it is far more difficult to cross repeatedly. Therefore the tendency was to remain in the U.S.

An unintended consequence of the tighter [[border security]] is that millions stayed in the U.S. and did not return.

Most Mexicans who come are religious and culturally conservative. They communities do not encourage [[homosexuality]], [[abortion]] or [[teenage promiscuity]].

Like other immigrant groups, many illegals send money to their families remaining in the old country. In Mexico this funding is the second largest source of [[foreign income]], after [[crude oil]] sales. It represents as much as 2.5 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product <ref>[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20724214~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html] World Bank Report on Migration and Welfare</ref>

====Canada and Canadians====
Currently estimates show around 600,000<ref>[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf Pew Hispanic Center report]</ref> undocumented Canadian workers work in the U.S. They do not contribute to the U.S. economy in any way shape or form. Canadian citizens are not required to obtain Visas Unlike Mexican citizens, instead they have Visa waivers which last for six months. They take jobs from U.S. citizens primarily because they would be paid significantly less for the same jobs in Canada. (mainly in the construction industry.) The border with Canada is significantly easier to cross, due to several factors such as less Border Patrol personnel and a significantly greater border a 5,525 mile border with Canada compared (with 1,538 miles being added from [[Alaska]] 's border) to the 1,951 mile long border with [[Mexico]]. Along the border with [[Canada]] we have around 1,000 Border Patrol agents to cover the entire border, whilst on our border in [[Mexico]] we have around 11,000 agents.

==Amnesty==
The [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan Administration]] gave amnesty to all the illegals present in the country in 1986. The "Immigration Control and Reform Act" of 1986 legalized the status of about 3 million immigrants. Other laws legalized the status of immigrants from Cuba and Haiti. In 2006 President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] proposed legislation to legalize the status of most of the illegals. The business and religious communities supported the idea, but grass roots opposition blocked passage in Congress and denounced the notion of "amnesty."

==Moral issues==
As the [[Bible]] exhorts people to be compassionate towards illegal immigrants (Exodus 23:9 and Leviticus 19:34), and as more Americans are [[Christian]] than any other religion, many Americans feel compelled by their religion to show compassion and caring for illegal immigrants, many of whom are trying to escape tyranny or poverty in their homelands.

Some conservatives oppose illegal immigration because it allows for immigrants to fall between the cracks of society thus making them more likely to commit crime or experience poverty. Other conservatives view illegal immigration as an exercise in a basic [[individualism|individual]] [[human rights|human right]] to pursue happiness. Illegal immigration is also economically damaging to countries because illegal immigrants will often work illegally for below minimum wage, resulting in job loss for legal citizens.

Three obvious questions and one obvious remark:

1. Did it occur to anyone that it is illegal to be illegal? Since then, doing illegal things intentionally is morally acceptable?

2. "We are all immigrants"; Yes, almost all Americans are descendants of immigrants; but of legal ones.

3. "We have to show compassion." Question: Does compassion mean that America should let in ALL the poor and oppressed people of the world, all the 3-4 '''bil'''lion people? If not, then why should we favor just Mexicans who force their way illegally? Guatemalans, for example, are extremely poor, very peaceful (nobody ever heard of Guatemalan gangs), hard working, and we are not helping them. Is our selective compassion moral?

Our system, that great gift to our nation and to the world given to us by the Founding Fathers, was developed with practicality and morality being the one and only imperative of the design, making the firm foundation of our country, lasting for more than 200 years. Now we are admitting tens of millions of people of very different backgrounds, from many countries which are anti-democratic and with deep culture of corruption - without Americanizing them, that is without making them understand and appreciate our unique, great system. American Constitution, Federalist Papers, are not taught at schools and even at universities. Our country and our system is not just one of many, not just as good or bad as any other. Let us keep it forever! Let us never forget Franklin's answer to the woman who asked him right after the Constitutinal Convention: "- So, what system are you giving us?" - "Republic; if you can keep it."

==Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.==

Among many others:

*2002 - Ingmar Guandique, a Salvadoran in the United States, is currently serving a ten year prison term for assaulting two joggers in Washington D.C. is now suspected of killing [[Chandra Levy]]. The Levy case is famous because during the initial investigation her relationship with California congressman [[Gary Condit]] was revealed, ending his career. <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/return-of-the-chandra-levy-case-and-illegal-alien-sex-offender-ingmar-guandique/</ref>

*2005 - Raul Garcia-Gomez, shot two Denver police officers in the back, killing one. He fled to Mexico and was captured. However, the Mexcian government sheltered Gomez until the American prosecutor agreed to not seek the death penalty against him. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337719,00.html Illegal Immigrant Worker Sentenced in Slaying of Actress Adrienne Shelly], ''[[Associated Press]]'', March 13, 2008</ref>

*2008 - Diego Pillco, a 20-year-old from Ecuador, pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter of actress Adrienne Shelly. Pillco was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Pillco admitted strangling Shelly and then hanging her body to make it look like a suicide. The judge said Pillco would be subject to immediate deportation upon release from prison. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337719,00.html Illegal Immigrant Worker Sentenced in Slaying of Actress Adrienne Shelly], ''[[Associated Press]]'', March 13, 2008</ref>

*2008 - Edwin Ramos, killed three people on their way home from a family picnic. Ramos had been arrested multiple times before the killings (once for mugging a pregnant woman), but the city of San Francisco shielded him from deportation. <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/20/MNK011MAFR.DTL</ref>

==Statistics==

The amount of people immigrating to the United States illegally has declined since 2001. People who formerly moved back and forth across the border (working the agricultural fields in the US in the summer and wintering in a village in the winter) has declined, and instead they tremain in the U.S. The estimated number of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 was about 12 million. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0603/charts.immigration/frameset.exclude.html?eref=yahoo</ref> <ref>[http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf A Line In The Sand] House Committee on Homeland Security</ref>

$397 billion dollars have been paid to families containing illegal immigrants through social services since 1996. Most of the money goes to schooling for U.S. citizens and for children.<ref>http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134</ref>

The number of illegal aliens who are in prison is over 300,000, about 3% of the total.<ref> The number of convicted criminal aliens in federal prison at the end of 2003 was 46,063; in state prisons and local jails here were 262,105.[http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html online]</ref>

Sex offenders comprised 2% of illegals who have been arrested. Nearly one million sex crimes were committed by illegal immigrants in the United States, in the seven years 1999-2006. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. <ref>[http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration] Violent Crimes Institute, 2006</ref>

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Most of the costs were incurred by U.S. citizens, however, not by the illegals. On average, the costs that illegal households impose are less than half that of other households. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs by illegals tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. <ref>[http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html The High Cost of Cheap Labor] Center For Immigration Studies</ref>

California spent more than 11 billion dollars per year on illegal immigrants. California is seeking the federal government to bail them out of their financial deficit.

<blockquote>
'' There are some 7 million illegal immigrants in this country who lack health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.'' [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090912/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul]
</blockquote>

===2010 Statistics===
Data compilled from [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] and [[Department of Homeland Security]] reports indicate:

* 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
* 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
* 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles , Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
* 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and Federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually
* 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in [[California]], [[New Mexico]], Nevada, Arizona and [[Texas]] are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
* 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens
* 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or "[[transport coyotes]]".
* 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.
* 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for
the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens
* 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for
the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.
* 380,000 plus "anchor babies" were born in the US to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.
* 97.2% of all costs incurred from those illegal births were paid by the American taxpayers.

== See also ==
*[[Latino]]
*[[Xenophobia]]
*[[Lozano v. Hazleton]]
*[[Elvira Arellano]]
*[[Reno v. Flores]]

==Bibliography==
* David W. Haines, Karen E. Rosenblum. ''Illegal Immigration in America: A Reference Handbook'' (Greenwood Press, 1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/111894645?title=Illegal%20Immigration%20in%20America%3a%20%20A%20Reference%20Handbook online edition]
* Pierre Hauser, ''Illegal Aliens'' (1990)
* Jeffrey S. Passel, "Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics," Pew Hispanic Center Reports and fact Sheets. (June 14, 2005), [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=46 online]
* Claudia Sadowski-Smith. "Unskilled Labor Migration and the Illegality Spiral: Chinese, European, and Mexican Indocumentados in the United States, 1882–2007," ''American Quarterly,'' Volume 60, Number 3, September 2008, pp. 779-804 [http://muse.uq.edu.au/login?uri=/journals/american_quarterly/v060/60.3.sadowski-smith.html in Project Muse]
* Aristide R. Zolberg, ''A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America'' (2006)
* TRAC REPORTS "''Border Patrol Expands But Growth Rate After 9/11 Much Less Than Before Division Between North/South Border Little Changed''" April 4, 2006 [http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/143/]

==External links==
*[http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/11/reasons_to_vote_for_mccain_rea.php About Illegal Immigration], [[Right Wing News]]
*[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/day-one-gop-congressman-introduces-bill-to-end-birthright-citizenship/ Congressman Introduces Bill to End ‘Birthright Citizenship’]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Immigration]]
[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

User:CPalmer

2012-05-24T00:38:19Z

Muteswan:

<center>Improving Conservapedia since 2008 </center>

My first project was to concentrate on improving the articles on the [[Divine Comedy]] and related topics. I'm more or less happy with these now, though further suggestions are welcome.

I've also written a reasonably informative entry on the fine sport of [[weightlifting]].

And as if that wasn't enough, I've even been known to tidy up categories as well. The links that used to be on [[User:Interiot|Interiot]]'s user page are very helpful for this eccentric pastime - I've saved them [[/Interiotlinks|here]].

Any suggestions, comments and contributions are very welcome.

As of August 2011, I have blocking rights and also SkipCaptcha. If I can be of any assistance, do let me know. As of March 2012, I have night-editing rights, too!

== Page I can never find ==
*[[Conservapedia:Image upload requests|Upload requests]]

== My writings ==
I've written an essay on Jesus' relative emphasis on Heaven and Hell, based on Mark's Gospel. You can read it [[Essay:Jesus'_emphasis_on_Heaven_and_Hell|here]].

Continuing the theme, I've also posted a [[Mystery:Where is Hell?|mystery]] about the exact nature of Hell. All parties are invited to respond.

== Backslapping below==
I continue to enjoy interacting with the other users on Conservapedia. Accordingly, here is a list of ten of my current favourite Conservapedia editors:
*[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] - Welcomed me, and has sparked some fruitful discussions
*[[User:Cipe|Cipe]] - Eagle-eyed template help
*[[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]] - Tireless, low-key editing
*[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] - A very polite and erudite fellow
*[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] - A maker of good suggestions
*[[User:Jduck1979|Jduck1979]] - Could JDuck be Conservapedia's longest-running "basic rights" user?
*[[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] - Some good work on the categories and vigilance elsewhere
*[[User:GregG|GregG]] - Insightful additions to various pages
*[[User:LowKey|Low Key]] - Another long-running user who took the time to introduce himself
*[[User:Benp|Benp]] - And another, although he now has well-deserved extra rights.

Please don't be put out if you're not on the list - if there is any unpleasantness I shall take it down straight away.

==Bible references==
One of the best things about this site is that Bible references automatically show the text when you put the mouse over them. Example: Ezra 10:22.

Temporarily unavailable, it would seem; but it is a good feature when it works.

== Praise for CPalmer ==
"I hope we can create a Conservapedia:Writer of the Year award, just so we can give it to you." - [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Nov 2008

"I am declaring you an honourary WikiGnome for all your efforts in doing the fiddly things no-one else seems to do." - [[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]], Jan 2009

"Thanks for your [...] superb work. I've learned from your contributions." - [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]], Aug 2009

Thanks for having done a part of my job - putting References of my article "Statins" in the right format. I am a newcomer and at that time I did not know how to do that. Muteswan

== Favourite entries ==

*[[Physical appearance]]
*[[Hearsay society]]
*[[Gospel of Mark (Translated)]]
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Best New Conservative Words]]
*[[Conservapedia:Index|Conservapaedia:Index]]
*[[Conservative parables]]
*[[Emotional gambling]]
*[[Faith]]
*[[Essay:Passages Most Likely to Convert]]
*[[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|Quantifying Openmindedness]]
*[[Essay:Quantifying Mental Strength|Quantifying Mental Strength]]

==Also==
Please excuse British spelling on this page.

Statins

2012-05-24T00:26:31Z

Muteswan: Mostly corrections of style.

==Description==
Statins are [[cholesterol]]-reducing drugs. The widespread opinion is that statins are among the most successful drugs ever developed, and that they have prevented millions of strokes and heart attacks. This opinion is debatable.

==THE STATIN CONTROVERSY==
Very few reliable, non-controversial statements about statins can be made, so the least biased way of presenting here the current state of knowledge about statins, is presenting opposing information in an adversarial way; here are some representative examples of the published information on statins:

'''Two encouraging quotations''' from a reputable source Bandolier<ref>[http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/cardiac/statnonL.html Non-lipid effects of statins]</ref> related to the Oxford University (UK):

"''Statins are undeniably good at altering lipid profiles and reducing morbidity and mortality associated with unfavorable lipid levels“. „Statins bring many other beneficial effects: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects, anti-thrombotic effects''"
(that is they prevent dangerous bursting of plaques in veins).

- a summary of another article<ref>[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cvp;jsessionid=1i8tm4cxwox3s.alice Non-lipid effects of statins, Aylin Yildirir; Haldun Muderrisoglu, Volume 2, Number 4, October 2004 , pp. 309-318(10)]</ref>

''Statins do much more than helping protecting against cholesterol-plaque build-up in arteries and from heart attacks: they reduce inflamation in veins, reduce fracture risk in osteoporosis, slow down progression of Alzheimer's disease and congestive heart failure, and may help acceptance of transplanted organs, and produce anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects and antithrombotic effects.''

- and from yet another reliable article<ref>Chronic kidney disease (CKD) Management and General Practice, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners), April 13, 2012</ref>:

''Statins slightly improve functioning of kidneys and slows down deterioration of kidneys caused by aging.
''

''' Now the opposing opinions:'''

Researchers have found <ref>Statin drugs cause liver damage, kidney failure and cataracts, says British Medical Journal, (BMJ), November 07, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, [http://www.naturalnews.com/030317_statin_drugs_liver_damage.html Naturalnews.com]</ref> that statins did lower the risk of heart disease, saving 271 people for every 10,000 treated. In other words, for each person whom statins saved from a heart disease, 33 men or 37 women are treated without any beneficial effect, but with large expenses and a comparably-small risk of severe damages in other areas of the body: 74 develop liver dysfunction, 23 develop kidney renal failure (catastrophic), 307 develop cataracts, 39 a muscle disease, some rhabdomyolysis, a catastrophic decomposition of muscles, followed by kidney failure.

In another study (the WOSCOPS trial) 1.6% of previously healthy people had a heart attack within five years if they were not using statins, and 1.2% if they were using statins - less than one half of one percentage point of credit for statins.
In another study (the CARE trial) 5.7% of people who had had a previous heart attack, had another attack within five years if they were not using statins, and 4.6% if they were using statins - about one percentage point of credit for statins.

 - and a short quotation from another article <ref>[http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Atherosclerosis/20232 Medpagetoday.com] Noncardiac benefits of statins found lacking, By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today, Published: May 21, 2010 Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston and Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner</ref>:

''"Claims of unintended benefits of statins appear to be largely unsubstantiated and known risks -- including liver and renal problems and myopathy -- confirmed, British researchers concluded based on findings from a large prospective open cohort study"''

The paragraphs presented above are just typical examples of opinions expressed in thousands of articles published on the subject of statins.

==THE CAUSES OF THE CONTROVERSY==

The use of statins is highly controversial, which has roots in the controversy about [[atherosclerosis]] and about [[cholesterol]] whom statins supposedly supress. It is true that [[atherosclerosis]] is a real medical problem, and it is also true that the imperative to use statins was unjustifiably imposed on US government, on American doctors and on American public, without prior scientific proof (see article [[Cholesterol]]).

The second cause of the great controversy about statins is the enormous amount of money involved in statins. The price of some statins, one-month supply, is more than 500 dollars; multiplied by millions of user, the profits are likely to be monumental. Pharmaceutical companies are commonly accused of greed, but they rebuke that accusation, blaming the excessive government regulations that impose on them such procedures, that it takes average twenty years from developing a new drug to the final approval by the US Government. That is true, but in Canada the regulations are about the same, yet the before-the-insurance prices of drugs are only a half of the American ones. Therefore consumer organizations blame the powerful pharmaceutical lobbying in USA, so powerful that both American insurance companies and the Government, accept prices twice higher than those in Canada. So who deserves the blame? The greedy manufacturers, the regulations, the lobbying, the lenient health-insurance organizations, or the US Government organizations and the lawmakers? Deservedly, “'''All the above.'''”

The third source of the confusion is the corrupting link between pharmaceutical manufacturers and universities and other research organizations. At most of American universities, research is funded predominantly by grants. This often presents university professors a difficult choice: to produce honest research data, and risk severing connection with the grantor, or “stretch” the data and continue with the research grants. That is especially evident in the case of statin research, e.g. five large studies have been conducted on comparison of health benefits of statins vs. their cost. Each of those studies “scientifically proved” that their sponsor’s product was the most health/cost effective. That is clearly a moral prostitution with grave effects on health and well-being of people who trust university professors.

Scientists can disagree about theories and their interpretations, but not about facts. If they do, something is wrong. Overall, this situation is disgraceful, deplorable and unacceptable. In view of the link of the academy to the huge money of the industry, this situation reflects the degree of corruption of a large part of medical research. It must not be overlooked that in this money-and-career game, the health and the even lives of millions of people are disregarded and/or harmed.

==A POSSIBLE RESOLUTION OF THE STATIN CONTROVERSY==

The controversy is so strong, it has been lasting for so long time, and the question is so important, that Consumer Reports, a non-profit organization whose objectivity has never been questioned, has stepped in and issued their report<ref>Evaluating statin drugs to treat: high cholesterol and heart disease, comparing effectiveness, safety and price. [http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/statins.htm Consumer Reports on statins]</ref>, which provides a balanced and cautious, yet encouraging guidance: who should use statins, what kind of statins, and how much that will cost. That paper consists of several forms of the report, ranging from a full report, down to a simplistic summary.

Neutral advice: People who decide to use statins, should ask their Doctors to periodically check the kidney functions all the time the statins are used, plus up to three years after statin use discontinued, since that is how long statins’ side effects on kidneys last.

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Drugs]]

Ornithosis

2012-05-23T16:46:48Z

Muteswan: References added, spelling corrected.

==Description==

Ornithosis (meaning "bird disase", from Greek ornithos "bird") also called Psittacosis, Parrot Disease or Parrot Fever, is a serious human disease with mortality ranging from 1% when treated with antibiotics, to 20% when untreated. The bacteria (Chlamydia psittaci) invade people by breathing-in an invisible dust from infected birds. Most of the infected birds carry the disease without becoming sick and without any visible symptoms, a few die within three weeks. <ref> http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/discond/Pages/Psittacosis.aspx </ref>

==Causes==

Although all birds can be carriers of this disease, parrots, parakeets, macaws, cockatiels, pigeons (widespread), turkeys, ducks, chicken, finches and canary birds have been most frequently involved in transmission to people, with parrots on top of this list, and canary birds at the bottom. Related diseases happen also among sheep and tortoises. Several cases of human-to-human infection have also been reported. The very same disease, when acquired from any kind of a parrots (order Psittaciformes) is called Psittacosis; when acquired from any other kind of bird, a generic name Ornithosis is used. <ref> http://www.cdc.gov/osels/ph_surveillance/nndss/casedef/psittacosis_1996.htm Psittacosis (Chlamydia psittaci) (Ornithosis) </ref> <ref> http://www.cdph.ca.gov/healthinfo/discond/Pages/Psittacosis.aspx California Department of Health Psittacosis </ref>

==Symptoms==

The symptoms start after 1-2 weeks of exposure, initially mildly, with subsequent aggravation. Initially symptoms may include: fever, shivering, sensitivity to light, muscle pains, bleeding from nose, abdominal pains, nausea or vomiting, restlessness. The second phase may include: endocarditis (inflammation of heart valves), hepatitis, painful coughing, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and potentially deadly sepsis and septic shock (a whole-body inflammation). <ref> http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/psittacosis/fact_sheet.htm Psittacosis (ornithosis, parrot fever, chlamydiosis) </ref> <ref> http://www.cdc.gov/osels/ph_surveillance/nndss/casedef/psittacosis_1996.htm Psittacosis (Chlamydia psittaci) (Ornithosis) </ref>

==Diagnosis==

Diagnosis is possible (Levinthal-Cole-Lillie makrophages present) but in real life diagnosis is difficult, and likely to be mis-diagnosed as flu or pneumonia. According to CDC „''since 1996, fewer than 50 confirmed cases were reported in the United States each year. Many more cases may occur that are not correctly diagnosed or reported''.“ Larger outbreaks happen from time to time. Suspicion of psittacosis /ornithosis should be considered especially with the following symptoms on top of the forementioned: brachycardia (slow pulse) in spite of fever, enlargement of spleen. muscle aches with their tension, spots in the face skin. The increase in antibodies count, four-fold typically in psittacosis /ornithosis, may be misleadingly subdued by the use of antibiotics. <ref> http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/psittacosis/fact_sheet.htm Psittacosis (ornithosis, parrot fever, chlamydiosis) </ref> <ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001152/ PubMed Health, Psittacosis, Ornithosis; Chlamydia psittaci </ref> <ref> http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Psittacosis.htm Patient.co.UK „Psittacosis“</ref>

==Treatment==

Treatment with antibiotics is almost always effective (with the exception of heart-valve inflammation, since heart valves themselves are not supplied with blood), unless treatment started too late. Doxycycline, Docycline hyclate administered intavenously in severe cases,Tetracycline hydrochloride, Chloramphenicol palmitate, have been successfully used. In very severe cases treatment should focus on supporting the vital functions. After recovering, the antibiotic treatment should continue for two weeks. <ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001152/ PubMed Health, Psittacosis, Ornithosis; Chlamydia psittaci </ref> <ref> http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/communicable/psittacosis/fact_sheet.htm Psittacosis (ornithosis, parrot fever, chlamydiosis) </ref> <ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001152/ PubMed Health, Psittacosis, Ornithosis; Chlamydia psittaci </ref>

===Follow-up precautions===

After returning home it is a good precaution to immediately and thoroughly wash (with bleach added to the water) the previously used bedding sheets and clothing.
You can still have long-lasting effects on heart (myocarditis), joints (arthritis), brain (encephalitis, meningitis, paralysis) or eyes (keratoconjunctivitis). Those effects are rare, but this fact does not help those people who have them.
Than think twice before approaching any bird, and especially before considering working in a pet store.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Diseases]]

Ornithosis

2012-05-23T16:17:57Z

Muteswan: /* Description */ spelling

==Description==

Ornithosis (meaning "bird disase", from Greek ornithos "bird") also called Psittacosis, Parrot Disease or Parrot Fever, is a serious human disease with mortality ranging from 1% when treated with antibiotics, to 20% when untreated. The bacteria (Chlamydia psittaci) invade people by breathing-in an invisible dust from infected birds. Most of the infected birds carry the disease without becoming sick and without any visible symptoms, a few die within three weeks.

==Causes==

Although all birds can be carriers of this disease, parrots, parakeets, macaws, cockatiels, pigeons (widespread), turkeys, ducks, chicken, finches and canary birds have been most frequently involved in transmission to people, with parrots on top of this list, and canary birds at the bottom. Related diseases happen also among sheep and tortoises. Several cases of human-to-human infection have also been reported. The very same disease, when acquired from any kind of a parrots (order Psittaciformes) is called Psittacosis; when acquired from any other kind of bird, a generic name Ornitosis is used.

==Symptoms==

The symptoms start after 1-2 weeks of exposure, initially mildly, with subsequent aggravation. Initially symptoms may include: fever, shivering, sensitivity to light, muscle pains, bleeding from nose, abdominal pains, nausea or vomiting, restlessness. The second phase may include: endocarditis (inflamation of heart valves), hepatitis, painful caughing, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and potentially deadly sepsis and septic shock (a whole-body inflamation).

==Diagnosis==

Diagnosis is possible (Levinthal-Cole-Lillie makrophages present) but in real life diagnosis is difficult, and likely to be mis-diagnosed as flu or pneumonia. According to CDC „since 1996, fewer than 50 confirmed cases were reported in the United States each year. Many more cases may occur that are not correctly diagnosed or reported.“ Larger outbreaks happen from time to time. Suspicion of sittacosis /ornitosis should be considered especially with the following symptoms on top of the forementioned: brachycardia (slow pulse) in spite of fever, enlargement of spleen. muscle aches with their tension, spots in the face skin. The increase in antibodies count, four-fold typically in sittacosis /ornitosis, may be misleadingly subdued by the use of antibiotics.

==Treatment==

Treatment with antibiotics is almost always effective (with the exception of heart-valve inflamation, since heart valves themselves are not supplied with blood), unless treatment started too late. Doxycycline, Docycline hyclate administered intavenously in severe cases,Tetracycline hydrochloride, Chloramphenicol palmitate, have been successfully used. In very severe cases treatment should focus on supporting the vital functions. After recovering, the antibiotic treatment should continue for two weeks.

===Follow-up precautions===

After returning home it is a good precaution to immediately and thoroughly wash (with bleach added to the water) the previously used bedding sheets and clothing.
You can still have long-lasting effects on heart (myocarditis), joints (arthritis), brain (encephalitis, meningitis, paralysis) or eyes (keratoconjunctivitis). Those effects are rare, but this fact does not help those people who have them.
Than think twice before approaching any bird, and especially before considering working in a pet store.

==References==

Several sources have been used, in first place the website of Center for Disease Control and Prevention (US Department of Health and Human Services).
[[Category:Diseases]]

Cholesterol

2012-05-18T00:12:16Z

Muteswan: Much more information added

'''Cholesterol''' is a waxy, fat-like substance that occurs naturally in all parts of the body. There is actually a substance called cholesterol, but what is commonly called „cholesterol“ is a group of cholesterol-related substances called lipids, of which two are most important: „bad cholesterol“ = „low-density lipids“ (LDL) and „good cholesterol“ = „high-density lipids“ (HDL).

Cholesterol is not a foreign, harmful substance, whose presence in the body should be avoided. It is an excessive concentration of cholesterol what is harmful. We may be afraid of eating eggs or meat due to the cholesterol presence there, but there are good reasons why cholesterol is in eggs and meat, in the first place. Cholesterol is a component of every human cell membrane, and it is necessary precursor for bile and for steroid hormones. It also participates in transmission of signals by nerves. High cholesterol may even protect against infections <ref>http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/12/927.full?ijkey=172mwKXqzgmtE&keytype=ref
(many references quoted there)
</ref>
Only part (20-50%) of the body cholesterol comes from food, the other part is synthetized by the body, in the liver. If the food contains too little of cholesterol, own production of cholesterol increases to compensate for that deficiency. The body needs some cholesterol to work properly but if there is too much in the blood, it can stick to the walls of the [[arteries]]. This is called [[plaque]]. Plaque can narrow the arteries or even block them causing [[atherosclerosis]].
Atherosclerisis is unquestionably a killer of millions of people, but what causes atherosclerosis is not so clear. Most commonly, cholesterol is blamed for that, but this corelation is controversial at best, since it has never been proven by research completely free of influence of special-interest groups; more of this is discussed below.

High levels of cholesterol in the [[blood]] can increase the risk of [[heart]] disease. Cholesterol levels tend to rise as a person gets older. There are usually no signs or symptoms that a person has high blood cholesterol, but it can be detected with a blood test. A person is likely to have high cholesterol if members of their family have it, if they are overweight, or if they eat a lot of fatty foods.

The best way to lower cholesterol is by exercising more and eating more fruits and vegetables.<ref>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/cholesterol.html</ref>
That is true, but many people who exercise, eat fruits and vegetables, still have high cholesterol level, experience heart attacks, strokes, and even die, as the result of atherosclerosis. For this reason doctors prescribe [[statins]] to millions of patients.
Physicians recognize two types of cholesterol; [[HDL]] (high-density lipoproteins) and [[LDL]] (low-density lipoproteins). HDL is considered to be "good" cholesterol while LDL is considered to be "bad" cholesterol. Some physicians maintain that for good physical health the ratio between these two be considered rather than the sum, so that a high cholesterol level is not considered an adverse health issue if the ratio between the two (LDL:HDL) is low. Typically the ratio is about 4:1. That ratio can be achieved either by lowering LDL, by raising HDL, or by both ways, by using appropriate medication. Contrary to this belief, very recently published (May 16, 2012) reputable research <ref> http://www.webmd.com/salynn-boyles WebMD Health News, „Raising HDL Levels May Not Lower Heart Attack Risk.“ </ref> announced: „''studies failed to show a link between higher concentrations of high-density lipoprotein (HDL and lower heart attack risk. ... studies of HDL-raising drugs have been largely disappointing.''“ It is quite disappointing indeed: since neither lowering LDL nor raising HDL helps preventing cardio-vascular diseases, then why are we wasting billions of dollars on those meaningless, if not harmful drugs?

Atherosclerosis and the cholesterol issue are not equally pervading around the world. This is an ethnic-related phenomenon, related somehow to national eating cultures, but not exclusively to them. It is mostly Americans who care so much about cholesterol, yet atherosclerosis kills Americans by millions. So called „French paradox“ points out to the well-known fact that many other nations (the French, Swiss, Russians and a numbrer of others) do not have a massive atherosclerosis problem even though their diet is very „unhealthy“ by American standards.

The cholesterol research was pioneered in 1950 by Ancel Keys, who came up with a hypothesis that heart diseases were caused by eating high-cholesterol foods, animal fats in first place. Over the following twenty years Keys led an extensive research project, alas, not to test his hypothesis, but to prove it.
Keys studied corelation between cardio-vascular diseases (CVD) and concentration of cholesterol in blood in people of 22 nations, but used for publication data from seven nations, only those whose data agreed with his hypothesis. That became his famous „Seven Countries study“ (12,763 men only, 40-59 year old). <ref>A. Keys - Seven Countries. A Multivariate Analysis of Death and Coronary Heart Disease, Harvard University Press </ref>

Keys was able to indoctrinate the American public, doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, who quickly recognized the huge business potential. Keys’s doctrine still rules, and its legitimate criticism is largely ignored. The criticism is neither trivial non un-professional; here is a typical example:
''“...careful examination of the death rates and associations between diet and death rates reveal a massive set of inconsistencies and contradictions. . . It is almost inconceivable that the Seven Countries study was performed with such scientific abandon. It is also dumbfounding how the NHLBI/AHA alliance ignored such sloppiness... In summary, the diet-CHD relationship reported for the Seven Countries study cannot be taken seriously by the objective and critical scientist."'' <ref>Diet, Blood Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature, Volume 2, November 1991 </ref>

And another example:
''“One of the largest studies ... used rather questionable methods: all prospective subjects were given the investigative drug (Simvastatin) for 6 weeks, and anyone showing signs of abnormal responses to the drug was excluded from the formal study.”... “ ... and resulted in fully two-thirds of the initial pool of subjects being ineligible for the study.''” <ref> http://www.answers.com/topic/ancel-keys </ref> <ref> Heart Protection Study, Lancet. 2002 Jul 6;360(9326):7-22 </ref> If that is not a fraud, what is?

A contributing factor may be a very high consumption of sugar in USA. A statistical American consumes twenty times more sugar now, comparing to Americans two hundred years ago, and that coincides with the growth in heart diseases in that period. <ref> http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/by-2606-us-diet-will-be-100-percent.html Stephan Guyenet, based on statistics from old US Department of Commerce reports and the USDA </ref>

There is also a growing, although all too slowly, awareness among doctors and scientists that chronic inflamations contribute as much to atherosclerosis as does excessive cholesterol concentration. That is evident especially in case of thrombosis, that is plaques which burst open, sending their fragments into the blood vessels, often clogging them, with grave or fatal results. Inflamation is a beneficial tool of fighting many diseases e.g. bacterial ones, but a long-lasting („chronic“) inflamation is harmful. Study of this subject <ref> Low grade inflammation and coronary heart disease: prospective study and updated meta-analyses; John Danesh et al., British Medical Journal 2000 July 22; 321(7255): 199–204. </ref> <ref> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/copyright.html </ref> <ref> Heart on Fire, Scientific America, June 1998 </ref> concluded: „... '' markers of low grade inflammation were associated with one another and with future risk of coronary heart disease ..... These findings ... suggest that low grade inflammatory processes may be relevant to coronary heart disease.”''

The term „markers of inflamation“ requires explanation. If a visible part of the body is inflamed, redness and/or swelling allows to notice it. Inflamation inside the body needs other means of detection, usually the presence of some substances in blood, called „markers“, which allow detection of an inflamation and measuring its intensity. The most commonly used marker of inflamation is „C-reactive protein“ (CRP). If blood tests show elevated CRP levels repeatedly and consistently, then treatment with anti-inflamatory drugs [[statins]], [[Aspirin]], enteric-coated Aspirin for stomach protection, [[Tylenol]], can be considered. It needs to be remembered though that Aspirin, Tylenol and other drugs from that group cause some burden to the kidneys. If used together with blood-pressure-controlling drugs, that burden is severe. If Aspirin or Tylenol etc. is used together with blood-pressure-controlling drugs and any diuretic (urination-enhancing) drug is added to the former two, then kidneys are devastated very quickly by that „Triple Whammy“. <ref> “Recent studies have identified the ‘triple whammy’ in which combinations of diuretics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), ACE inhibitors (ACEI) and/or angiotensin receptor antagonists (ARA) may impair renal function.”
“Drug combinations and impaired renal function – the ‘triple whammy”
Katarzyna K. Loboz1, Gillian M. Shenfield
</ref> <ref> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.2005.59.issue-2/issuetoc British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, pages 239–243, February 2005 </ref>

The growing awareness of the inflamation factor in cardio-vascular diseases sometimes strays into a dangerous direction: developing CRP-suppressing drugs, instead of developing inflamation-suppressing drugs; that is an equivalent of the saying „killing the messenger“.

Even though it is unclear which contributes more to atherosclerosis: high cholesterol level in blood or chronic inflamations, [[statins]], having both anti-cholesterol and anti-inflamatory properties, may be beneficial both ways. The benefits of using [[statins]] is not sure though, and it is controversial due to the side effects, being a significant factor in case of [[statins]]. <ref> Beck, Melinda - Can a Drug That Helps Hearts Be Harmful to the Brain? Wall Street Journal 12 Feb 2008 </ref>

Statins do lower the risk of dying from a heart attack, but only slightly:
In one study (the WOSCOPS trial) 1.6% of previously healthy people had a heart attack within five years if they were not using statins, and 1.2% if they were using statins - less than one half of one percentage point of credit for statins.
In another study (the CARE trial) 5.7% of people who had a previous heart attack, had another attack within five years if they were not using statins, and 4.6% if they were using statins - about one percentage point of credit for statins.

National Cholesterol Education Program of The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) has issued the following recommendations on the desirable levels, at which LDL should be kept by medication: less than 70 mg/dl for high-risk groups, less than 100 mg/dl for low-risk groups.
These recommendations are lauded by the pharmaceutical industry, and criticized by many independent researchers. An example of the critics: ''“Instead of preventing cardiovascular disease the new guidelines may increase the mortality of other diseases” (e.g. kidney),” and transform healthy individuals into unhappy hypochondriacs obsessed with the chemical composition of their food and their blood''.“ <ref> http://www.ravnskov.nu/uffe.htm </ref> The fact cited in references # 6 and #7 (see above: “One of the largest studies ...") that in the Simvastatin study two thirds of people suffered from adverse side effects, is by no means trivial.

==See Also==
*[[Atheism and obesity]]

[http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics]
There is a long list of links and references, whose titles are telling, e.g:

Angell, Marcia ''Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.'' By the previous editor of New England Journal of medicine.

Colpo, Anthony - ''LDL Cholesterol: "Bad" Cholesterol, Or Bad Science.'' A brilliant review of the cholesterol folly published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons

Graveline, Duane - ''Lipitor, Thief of memory''

Kendrick, Malcolm - ''Cholesterol and the French paradox, the Swiss paradox, the Russian paradox, the Lithuanian paradox etc.''

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Medicine]]

Statins

2012-05-17T04:32:59Z

Muteswan: /* The statin controversy */ One more fact (one paragraph) added.

==Description==
Statins are [[cholesterol]]-reducing drugs. The widespread opinion is that statins are among the most successful drugs ever developed, and they have prevented millions of strokes and heart attacks. This opinion is debatable.

==The statin controversy==
Very few reliable statements about statins can be made, so the least biased way of presenting here the current state of knowledge about statins, is presenting opposing information in a dialectic, adversarial way; here are some representative examples of the published knowledge on statins:

Two short quotations from a reputable source Bandolier [1] related to the Oxford University (UK):

"''Statins are undeniably good at altering lipid profiles and reducing morbidity and mortality associated with unfavorable lipid levels“. „Statins bring many other beneficial effects: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects, anti-thrombotic effects''"
(that is they prevent dangerous bursting of plaques in veins).

- a summary of another article [2]:

Statins do much more than helping protecting against cholesterol-plaque build-up in arteries and from heart attacks: they reduce inflamation in veins, reduce fracture risk in osteoporosis, slow down progression of Alzheimer's disease and congestive heart failure, and may help acceptance of transplanted organs, and produce anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects and antithrombotic effects.

- and conclusion from yet another reliable article [3]:

Statins slightly improve functioning of kidneys and slows down deterioration of kidneys caused by aging.

''' Now the opposing opinions:'''

Researchers found [4] that statins did lower the risk of heart disease, saving 271 people for every 10,000 treated. In other words, for each person whom statins saved from a heart disease, 33 men or 37 women are treated without any beneficial effect, but with a comparably-small risk of severe damages in other areas of the body: 74 develop liver dysfunction, 23 people kidney renal failure, 307 people cataracts, and 39 a muscle disease, some Rhabdomyolysis, a catastrophic decomposition of muscles, followed by kidney failure.

In another study (the WOSCOPS trial) 1.6% of previously healthy people had a heart attack within five years if they were not using statins, and 1.2% if they were using statins - less than one half of one percentage point of credit for statins.
In another study (the CARE trial) 5.7% of people who had a previous heart attack, had another attack within five years if they were not using statins, and 4.6% if they were using statins - about one percentage point of credit for statins.

 - and a short quotation from another article [5]:

''"Claims of unintended benefits of statins appear to be largely unsubstantiated and known risks -- including liver and renal problems and myopathy -- confirmed, British researchers concluded based on findings from a large prospective open cohort study"''

The paragraphs presented above are just typical examples of opinions expressed in thousands of articles published on the subject of statins.

==The causes of the controversy==

The use of statins is highly controversial, which has roots in the controversy about [[cholesterol]] whom statins supress. It is true that cholesterol is a real medical problem, and it is also true that the imperative to use statins was unjustifiably imposed on US government, on American doctors and on American public, without prior scientific proof.

The second cause of the great controversy about statins is the enormous amount of money involved in statins. The price of some statins, one-month supply, is more than 500 dollars; multiplied by millions of user, the profits are likely to be monumental. Pharmaceutical companies are commonly accused of greed, but they rebuke that accusation, blaming the excessive regulations, that impose on them such procedures, that it takes average twenty years from developing a new drug to the final approval by the US Government. That is true, but in Canada the regulations are about the same, yet the before-the-insurance prices of drugs are only a half of the American ones. Therefore consumer organizations blame the powerful pharmaceutical lobbying in USA, so powerful that both American insurance companies and the Government, accept prices twice higher than those in Canada. So who deserves the blame? The greedy manufacturers, the regulations, the lobbying, the lenient health-insurance organizations, or the US Government organizations and lawmakers? Deservedly, “All the above.”

The third source of the confusion is the corrupting link between the pharmaceutical manufacturers and universities and other research organizations. At most of American universities, research is funded predominantly by grants. This often presents university professors a difficult choice: to produce honest research data and risk severing connection with the grantor, or “stretch” the data and continue with the research grants. That is especially evident in the case of statin research, e.g. five large studies have been conducted on comparison of health benefits of statins vs. their cost. Each of those studies “scientifically proved” that their sponsor’s product was the most health/cost effective. That is clearly a moral prostitution with grave effects on people who trust university professors.

Scientists can disagree about theories and their interpretations, but not about facts. If they do, something is wrong. Overall, this situation is disgraceful, deplorable and unacceptable. In view of the link of the academy to the huge money of the industry, this situation reflects the degree of corruption of a large part of medical research. It must not be overlooked that in this money- and career game, the health and the lives of millions of people are disregarded and/or harmed.

==A possible resolution of the statin controversy==

The controversy is so strong, it has been lasting for so long time, and the question is so important, that Consumer Reports, a non-profit organization whose reliability has never been questioned, has stepped in and issued their report [6], which provides a balanced and cautious, yet encouraging guidance: who should use statins, what kind of statins, and how much that will cost. That paper consists from several reports, ranging from a full report, down to a simplistic summary.

A balanced advice: People who decide to use statins, should ask their Doctors to periodically check the kidney functions all the time the statins are used, plus up to three years after statin use discontinued, since that is how long statins’ side effects on kidneys last.

==References==
'References:
1. Non-lipid effects of statins, http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/cardiac/statnonL.html

2. Non-lipid effects of statins, Aylin Yildirir; Haldun Muderrisoglu http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cvp;jsessionid=1i8tm4cxwox3s.alice, Volume 2, Number 4, October 2004 , pp. 309-318(10)

3. (Chronic kidney disease (CKD) Management and General Practice, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners), April 13, 2012

4. Statin drugs cause liver damage, kidney failure and cataracts, says British Medical Journal, (BMJ), November 07, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, http://www.naturalnews.com/030317_statin_drugs_liver_damage.html

5. Noncardiac benefits of statins found lacking, http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Atherosclerosis/20232 By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today, Published: May 21, 2010 Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston and Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner

6.Evaluating statin drugs to treat: high cholesterol and heart disease, comparing effectiveness, safety and price. [http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/statins.htm Consumer Reports on statins]
[[Category:Drugs]]

Cholesterol

2012-05-16T23:46:32Z

Muteswan: More information added, no previous text removed.

Statins

2012-05-05T05:45:01Z

Muteswan: /* A possible resolution of the statin controversy */

==Description==
Statins are [[cholesterol]]-reducing drugs. The widespread opinion is that statins are among the most successful drugs ever developed, and they have prevented millions of strokes and heart attacks. This opinion is debatable.

==The statin controversy==
Very few reliable statements about statins can be made, so the least biased way of presenting here the current state of knowledge about statins, is presenting opposing information in a dialectic, adversarial way; here are some representative examples of the published knowledge on statins:

Two short quotations from a reputable source Bandolier [1] related to the Oxford University (UK):

"''Statins are undeniably good at altering lipid profiles and reducing morbidity and mortality associated with unfavorable lipid levels“. „Statins bring many other beneficial effects: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects, anti-thrombotic effects''"
(that is they prevent dangerous bursting of plaques in veins).

- a summary of another article [2]:

Statins do much more than helping protecting against cholesterol-plaque build-up in arteries and from heart attacks: they reduce inflamation in veins, reduce fracture risk in osteoporosis, slow down progression of Alzheimer's disease and congestive heart failure, and may help acceptance of transplanted organs, and produce anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects and antithrombotic effects.

- and conclusion from yet another reliable article [3]:

Statins slightly improve functioning of kidneys and slows down deterioration of kidneys caused by aging.

''' Now the opposing opinions:'''

Researchers found [4] that statins did lower the risk of heart disease, saving 271 people for every 10,000 treated. In other words, for each person whom statins saved from a heart disease, 33 men or 37 women are treated without any beneficial effect, but with a comparably-small risk of severe damages in other areas of the body: 74 develop liver dysfunction, 23 people kidney renal failure, 307 people cataracts, and 39 a muscle disease, some Rhabdomyolysis, a catastrophic decomposition of muscles, followed by kidney failure.

 - and a short quotation from another article [5]:

''"Claims of unintended benefits of statins appear to be largely unsubstantiated and known risks -- including liver and renal problems and myopathy -- confirmed, British researchers concluded based on findings from a large prospective open cohort study"''

The paragraphs presented above are just typical examples of opinions expressed in thousands of articles published on the subject of statins.

==The causes of the controversy==

The use of statins is highly controversial, which has roots in the controversy about [[cholesterol]] whom statins supress. It is true that cholesterol is a real medical problem, and it is also true that the imperative to use statins was unjustifiably imposed on US government, on American doctors and on American public, without prior scientific proof.

The second cause of the great controversy about statins is the enormous amount of money involved in statins. The price of some statins, one-month supply, is more than 500 dollars; multiplied by millions of user, the profits are likely to be monumental. Pharmaceutical companies are commonly accused of greed, but they rebuke that accusation, blaming the excessive regulations, that impose on them such procedures, that it takes average twenty years from developing a new drug to the final approval by the US Government. That is true, but in Canada the regulations are about the same, yet the before-the-insurance prices of drugs are only a half of the American ones. Therefore consumer organizations blame the powerful pharmaceutical lobbying in USA, so powerful that both American insurance companies and the Government, accept prices twice higher than those in Canada. So who deserves the blame? The greedy manufacturers, the regulations, the lobbying, the lenient health-insurance organizations, or the US Government organizations and lawmakers? Deservedly, “All the above.”

The third source of the confusion is the corrupting link between the pharmaceutical manufacturers and universities and other research organizations. At most of American universities, research is funded predominantly by grants. This often presents university professors a difficult choice: to produce honest research data and risk severing connection with the grantor, or “stretch” the data and continue with the research grants. That is especially evident in the case of statin research, e.g. five large studies have been conducted on comparison of health benefits of statins vs. their cost. Each of those studies “scientifically proved” that their sponsor’s product was the most health/cost effective. That is clearly a moral prostitution with grave effects on people who trust university professors.

Scientists can disagree about theories and their interpretations, but not about facts. If they do, something is wrong. Overall, this situation is disgraceful, deplorable and unacceptable. In view of the link of the academy to the huge money of the industry, this situation reflects the degree of corruption of a large part of medical research. It must not be overlooked that in this money- and career game, the health and the lives of millions of people are disregarded and/or harmed.

==A possible resolution of the statin controversy==

The controversy is so strong, it has been lasting for so long time, and the question is so important, that Consumer Reports, a non-profit organization whose reliability has never been questioned, has stepped in and issued their report [6], which provides a balanced and cautious, yet encouraging guidance: who should use statins, what kind of statins, and how much that will cost. That paper consists from several reports, ranging from a full report, down to a simplistic summary.

A balanced advice: People who decide to use statins, should ask their Doctors to periodically check the kidney functions all the time the statins are used, plus up to three years after statin use discontinued, since that is how long statins’ side effects on kidneys last.

==References==
'References:
1. Non-lipid effects of statins, http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/cardiac/statnonL.html

2. Non-lipid effects of statins, Aylin Yildirir; Haldun Muderrisoglu http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cvp;jsessionid=1i8tm4cxwox3s.alice, Volume 2, Number 4, October 2004 , pp. 309-318(10)

3. (Chronic kidney disease (CKD) Management and General Practice, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners), April 13, 2012

4. Statin drugs cause liver damage, kidney failure and cataracts, says British Medical Journal, (BMJ), November 07, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, http://www.naturalnews.com/030317_statin_drugs_liver_damage.html

5. Noncardiac benefits of statins found lacking, http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Atherosclerosis/20232 By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today, Published: May 21, 2010 Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston and Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner

6.Evaluating statin drugs to treat: high cholesterol and heart disease, comparing effectiveness, safety and price. [http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/statins.htm Consumer Reports on statins]

Statins

2012-05-05T05:42:02Z

Muteswan: Both sides of the controversial issue of statin drugs are presented.

==Description==
Statins are [[cholesterol]]-reducing drugs. The widespread opinion is that statins are among the most successful drugs ever developed, and they have prevented millions of strokes and heart attacks. This opinion is debatable.

==The statin controversy==
Very few reliable statements about statins can be made, so the least biased way of presenting here the current state of knowledge about statins, is presenting opposing information in a dialectic, adversarial way; here are some representative examples of the published knowledge on statins:

Two short quotations from a reputable source Bandolier [1] related to the Oxford University (UK):

"''Statins are undeniably good at altering lipid profiles and reducing morbidity and mortality associated with unfavorable lipid levels“. „Statins bring many other beneficial effects: anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects, anti-thrombotic effects''"
(that is they prevent dangerous bursting of plaques in veins).

- a summary of another article [2]:

Statins do much more than helping protecting against cholesterol-plaque build-up in arteries and from heart attacks: they reduce inflamation in veins, reduce fracture risk in osteoporosis, slow down progression of Alzheimer's disease and congestive heart failure, and may help acceptance of transplanted organs, and produce anti-inflammatory effects, antioxidant effects and antithrombotic effects.

- and conclusion from yet another reliable article [3]:

Statins slightly improve functioning of kidneys and slows down deterioration of kidneys caused by aging.

''' Now the opposing opinions:'''

Researchers found [4] that statins did lower the risk of heart disease, saving 271 people for every 10,000 treated. In other words, for each person whom statins saved from a heart disease, 33 men or 37 women are treated without any beneficial effect, but with a comparably-small risk of severe damages in other areas of the body: 74 develop liver dysfunction, 23 people kidney renal failure, 307 people cataracts, and 39 a muscle disease, some Rhabdomyolysis, a catastrophic decomposition of muscles, followed by kidney failure.

 - and a short quotation from another article [5]:

''"Claims of unintended benefits of statins appear to be largely unsubstantiated and known risks -- including liver and renal problems and myopathy -- confirmed, British researchers concluded based on findings from a large prospective open cohort study"''

The paragraphs presented above are just typical examples of opinions expressed in thousands of articles published on the subject of statins.

==The causes of the controversy==

The use of statins is highly controversial, which has roots in the controversy about [[cholesterol]] whom statins supress. It is true that cholesterol is a real medical problem, and it is also true that the imperative to use statins was unjustifiably imposed on US government, on American doctors and on American public, without prior scientific proof.

The second cause of the great controversy about statins is the enormous amount of money involved in statins. The price of some statins, one-month supply, is more than 500 dollars; multiplied by millions of user, the profits are likely to be monumental. Pharmaceutical companies are commonly accused of greed, but they rebuke that accusation, blaming the excessive regulations, that impose on them such procedures, that it takes average twenty years from developing a new drug to the final approval by the US Government. That is true, but in Canada the regulations are about the same, yet the before-the-insurance prices of drugs are only a half of the American ones. Therefore consumer organizations blame the powerful pharmaceutical lobbying in USA, so powerful that both American insurance companies and the Government, accept prices twice higher than those in Canada. So who deserves the blame? The greedy manufacturers, the regulations, the lobbying, the lenient health-insurance organizations, or the US Government organizations and lawmakers? Deservedly, “All the above.”

The third source of the confusion is the corrupting link between the pharmaceutical manufacturers and universities and other research organizations. At most of American universities, research is funded predominantly by grants. This often presents university professors a difficult choice: to produce honest research data and risk severing connection with the grantor, or “stretch” the data and continue with the research grants. That is especially evident in the case of statin research, e.g. five large studies have been conducted on comparison of health benefits of statins vs. their cost. Each of those studies “scientifically proved” that their sponsor’s product was the most health/cost effective. That is clearly a moral prostitution with grave effects on people who trust university professors.

Scientists can disagree about theories and their interpretations, but not about facts. If they do, something is wrong. Overall, this situation is disgraceful, deplorable and unacceptable. In view of the link of the academy to the huge money of the industry, this situation reflects the degree of corruption of a large part of medical research. It must not be overlooked that in this money- and career game, the health and the lives of millions of people are disregarded and/or harmed.

==A possible resolution of the statin controversy==

The controversy is so strong, it has been lasting for so long time, and the question is so important, that Consumer Reports, a non-profit organization whose reliability has never been questioned, has stepped in and issued their report, which provides a balanced and cautious, yet encouraging guidance: who should use statins, what kind of statins, and how much that will cost. That paper consists from several reports, ranging from a full report, down to a simplistic summary.

A balanced advice: People who decide to use statins, should ask their Doctors to periodically check the kidney functions all the time the statins are used, plus up to three years after statin use discontinued, since that is how long statins’ side effects on kidneys last.

==References==
'References:
1. Non-lipid effects of statins, http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/cardiac/statnonL.html

2. Non-lipid effects of statins, Aylin Yildirir; Haldun Muderrisoglu http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cvp;jsessionid=1i8tm4cxwox3s.alice, Volume 2, Number 4, October 2004 , pp. 309-318(10)

3. (Chronic kidney disease (CKD) Management and General Practice, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners), April 13, 2012

4. Statin drugs cause liver damage, kidney failure and cataracts, says British Medical Journal, (BMJ), November 07, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, http://www.naturalnews.com/030317_statin_drugs_liver_damage.html

5. Noncardiac benefits of statins found lacking, http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Atherosclerosis/20232 By Kristina Fiore, Staff Writer, MedPage Today, Published: May 21, 2010 Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston and Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner

6.Evaluating statin drugs to treat: high cholesterol and heart disease, comparing effectiveness, safety and price. [http://www.consumerreports.org/health/best-buy-drugs/statins.htm Consumer Reports on statins]

African gray parrot

2012-05-02T22:24:25Z

Muteswan: A health warning and an external link added.

{{Taxonomy
|name=African gray parrot
|image=African gray parrot.jpg
|caption=
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=Tetrapoda
|class=Aves
|subclass=Neornithes
|infraclass=Neoaves
|superorder=Psittacimorphae
|order=Psittaciformes
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Psittacidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=Psittacini
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=Psittacus
|subgenus=
|species=P. erithacus
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=P. erithacus erithacus P. erithacus timneh
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
The '''African Gray Parrot''' (''Psittacus erithacus'') is a well-known [[species]] of [[parrot]] in the family [[Psittacidae]], native to [[Africa]]. This is one of the most intelligent species of parrots. It can, and loves to, imitate almost any sound, e.g. that of a cat or of a steam locomotive. The external link below quotes some amazing conversations with an African gray parrot.

There are two subspecies, the better-known nominal subspecies (''P. e. erithacus'') and the lesser-nown, smaller Timneh subspecies (''P. e. timneh'').

Contacts with any parrots, including apparently healthy ones, can result in acquiring a very serious disease [[Psittacosis]].

[http://creation.com/parrot-fashion Parrot fashion]

[[Category: Parrots]][[Category:African Tropical Parrots]]

Parrot

2012-05-02T21:21:01Z

Muteswan: A warning about a disease, transmittable from parrots, added

{{Taxonomy
|name=Parrot
|image=Red browed Amazon.jpg
|caption=Red-browed Amazon parrot (''Amazona rhodocorytha'')
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=Tetrapoda
|class=Aves
|subclass=Neornithes
|infraclass=Neoaves
|superorder=Psittacimorphae
|order=Psittaciformes
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=Cacatuidae Psittacidae Strigopidae
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
'''Parrots''' are [[bird]]s that come in a wide variety of bright colors. They are distinguished by having strong curved [[beak]]s and an upright posture. They are also noted for being highly [[intelligent]] for an animal. Their ability to imitate human speech makes them a popular pet, even though a parrot doesn't always completely understand things it says (parrots are intelligent birds and sometimes parrots have a degree of understanding of words they speak).[http://creation.com/parrot-fashion] [[African Gray Parrot]]s are especially notable for their eloquative talents. There are over 350 different species in the parrot family. The largest variety of parrots are macaws, which are native to South and Central America. Any kinds of birds are capable of carrying a very serious, transmittable to people, disease [[Ornithosis]], usually without becoming sick themselves, but of all kinds of birds, infection of people happens most frequently from parrots; then a different name [[psittacosis]] of the same disease is used. That happens rarely, but if it does, the consequences are often grave.

==Phylogeny==
*Family Strigopidae (New Zealand parrots)
::Tribe Nestorini ([[kākā]] and [[kea]])
::Tribe Strigopini ([[kakapo]])
*Family Cacatuidae ([[cockatoo]]s)
:Subfamily Microglossinae ([[palm cockatoo]])
:Subfamily Calyptorhynchinae (dark cockatoos, [[cockatiel]])
:Subfamily Cacatuinae (white cockatoos)

*Family Psittacidae (true parrots)
:Subfamily Micropsittinae (pygmy parrots)
::Tribe Micropsittini
:Subfamily Loriinae (lories and [[lorikeet]]s)
:Subfamily Psittacinae (tropical parrots and parakeets)
::Tribe Arini ([[amazon parrot|amazons]], [[conure]]s, [[macaw]]s)
::Tribe Cyclopsittacini ([[fig parrot]]s)
::Tribe Polytelini (west Australian parrots)
::Tribe Psittrichadini ([[Pesquet's Parrot]])
::Tribe Psittacini (African parrots)
::Tribe Psittaculini (Asian parrots and parakeets)
:Subfamily Platycercinae (broad-tailed parrots)
::Tribe Melopsittacini ([[budgerigar]])
::Tribe Neophemini (Australian broad-tailed parrots, Bourke's parrot)
::Tribe Pezoporini (ground parrots)
::Tribe Platycercini ([[rosella]]s)

== External links ==

*[http://creation.com/parrot-fashion Parrot feathers - a problem for evolutionists]

[[Category:Birds]]

Illegal immigration

2012-05-02T06:59:50Z

Muteswan: /* Mexico and Mexicans */

[[Image:Coleman - Arellano.jpg|thumb|The Rev. [[Oscar Carrasco]] and [[Elvira Arellano]]]]

'''Illegal immigration''' is the act of [[immigration|immigrating]] to a country without having the right to do so. A person who migrates without the legal right to do so is known as an [[illegal alien]].

__TOC__
==U.S.==
Illegal immigration has become a major issue in the [[United States]] in the 1980s, and continues to be a highly visible issue.

===Economic aspects===

Illegal immigrants pay sales taxes and gasoline taxes; most are too poor to pay income taxes. Many use fake Social Security numbers and pay Social Security taxes but are not eligible for any benefits. Many use tax-payer funded services such as health care and schools.

===Numbers of people===

Pew estimates about 12 million illegal immigrants lived in the U.S. in 2004.<ref>Higher estimates run to 20 million; [http://immigrationcounters.com/ see high estimate]</ref> However, many are afraid to use available services, such as domestic violence shelters, out of fear of deportation. Many illegals cannot speak English.

===Arguments favoring it===

====No one else wants those jobs anyway====
Illegal immigration is defended, saying that [[immigrants]] are simply coming to take [[unskilled job]]s that better educated Americans avoid, such as picking fruit and lettuce, making hotel beds and working in [[slaughterhouse]]s. One could just as easily argue, however, that these jobs in part only seem unappealing to many Americans because of their association with illegal immigrants.

====They need political asylum====
A small percentage come illegally to escape political oppression, as legal channels are not open to them.<ref>http://www.immigration-usa.com/george_weissinger.html immigration Usa</ref><ref>www.uscis.gov Immigration and Naturalization Services</ref><ref>www.dhs.gov Department of Homeland Security</ref> Marriage to a U.S. citizen does not automatically gain one citizenship. When Army Spc. Alex Jimenez was captured by terrorists in [[Iraq]], his wife was almost deported by the government. Strong public opinion allowed her to stay.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/20/national/main2956093.shtml Missing Soldier's Wife Faces Deportation]</ref>

===Where they come from===
[[Mexico]] is the source of the about half of the recent illegal immigrants to the United States. Most arrive legally and over-stay their visas. Others cross the border mostly through the desert southwest or less often by swimming across the [[Rio Grande]]. [[Canada]] is another large source. Currently estimates show around 70,000 undocumented Canadian workers work in the U.S. They come over from the border with [[Canada]] along the northern part of the United States which is not nearly as secure as the southern border with [[Mexico]].
====Dispute with Mexico====
The United States receives constant criticism from the Mexican government for its efforts to curb illegal immigration. And United States officials criticize Mexican officials for passing out handbooks on how to cross the border, saying Mexico is trying to avoid political and governmental reforms at home by encouraging its citizens to leave.

===Legal aspects===
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, "Improper Entry by Alien," any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
-Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
-Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
-Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.

Illegal entry is not a [[misdemeanor]] in U.S. law, at the level of [[speeding]]. Those who are caught are usually promptly expelled from the country without penalty. However, multiple illegal entries can lead to [[felony]] convictions.

<blockquote>
Legislative leaders in at least half a dozen American states say they will propose bills similar to a controversial law to fight illegal immigration that was adopted by [[Arizona]] last spring, even though a federal court has suspended central provisions of that statute. [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01immig.html?_r=1&hp]
</blockquote>

====Mexico and Mexicans====
Ironically, one of Mexico's harshest criticisms was a plan by the United States to make illegal immigration a felony offense, which would impose harsher penalties on illegal Mexican immigrants. Mexico's own laws make illegal immigration a felony offense in that country.[http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1602610/posts][http://www.vdare.com/awall/060518_memo.htm] When poor and peaceful Guatemalans illegally cross the southern Mexican border, Mexicans shoot and kill them by thousands; when arrested inside Mexico, Guatemalans are jailed, often not to leave the jail alive. But the Mexican President lectures USA about compassion.

Many Mexicans have to come to the United States to work because for many years the Mexican government was [[socialist]], being under the control of the [[Institutional Revolutionary Party]], which limited [[economic opportunity]] and [[economic growth|growth]]. Before 2001 there was frequent movement across the border. It was common to work in summer jobs in the U.S. and spend the winter in Mexico. Border security since then has become much stricter, and it is far more difficult to cross repeatedly. Therefore the tendency was to remain in the U.S.

An unintended consequence of the tighter [[border security]] is that millions stayed in the U.S. and did not return.

Most Mexicans who come are religious and culturally conservative. They communities do not encourage [[homosexuality]], [[abortion]] or [[teenage promiscuity]]. That, and their attitude to the law and order, changes in their second and third generation, though.

Like other immigrant groups, many illegals send money to their families remaining in the old country. In Mexico this funding is the second largest source of [[foreign income]], after [[crude oil]] sales. It represents as much as 2.5 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product <ref>[http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20724214~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html] World Bank Report on Migration and Welfare</ref>

====Canada and Canadians====
Currently estimates show around 600,000<ref>[http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf Pew Hispanic Center report]</ref> undocumented Canadian workers work in the U.S. They do not contribute to the U.S. economy in any way shape or form. Canadian citizens are not required to obtain Visas Unlike Mexican citizens, instead they have Visa waivers which last for six months. They take jobs from U.S. citizens primarily because they would be paid significantly less for the same jobs in Canada. (mainly in the construction industry.) The border with Canada is significantly easier to cross, due to several factors such as less Border Patrol personnel and a significantly greater border a 5,525 mile border with Canada compared (with 1,538 miles being added from [[Alaska]] 's border) to the 1,951 mile long border with [[Mexico]]. Along the border with [[Canada]] we have around 1,000 Border Patrol agents to cover the entire border, whilst on our border in [[Mexico]] we have around 11,000 agents.

==Amnesty==
The [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan Administration]] gave amnesty to all the illegals present in the country in 1986. The "Immigration Control and Reform Act" of 1986 legalized the status of about 3 million immigrants. Other laws legalized the status of immigrants from Cuba and Haiti. In 2006 President [[George W. Bush]] and Senator [[John McCain]] proposed legislation to legalize the status of most of the illegals. The business and religious communities supported the idea, but grass roots opposition blocked passage in Congress and denounced the notion of "amnesty."

==Moral issues==
As the [[Bible]] exhorts people to be compassionate towards illegal immigrants (Exodus 23:9 and Leviticus 19:34), and as more Americans are [[Christian]] than any other religion, many Americans feel compelled by their religion to show compassion and caring for illegal immigrants, many of whom are trying to escape tyranny or poverty in their homelands.

Some conservatives oppose illegal immigration because it allows for immigrants to fall between the cracks of society thus making them more likely to commit crime or experience poverty. Other conservatives view illegal immigration as an exercise in a basic [[individualism|individual]] [[human rights|human right]] to pursue happiness. Illegal immigration is also economically damaging to countries because illegal immigrants will often work illegally for below minimum wage, resulting in job loss for legal citizens.

==Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the U.S.==

Among many others:

*2002 - Ingmar Guandique, a Salvadoran in the United States, is currently serving a ten year prison term for assaulting two joggers in Washington D.C. is now suspected of killing [[Chandra Levy]]. The Levy case is famous because during the initial investigation her relationship with California congressman [[Gary Condit]] was revealed, ending his career. <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/23/return-of-the-chandra-levy-case-and-illegal-alien-sex-offender-ingmar-guandique/</ref>

*2005 - Raul Garcia-Gomez, shot two Denver police officers in the back, killing one. He fled to Mexico and was captured. However, the Mexcian government sheltered Gomez until the American prosecutor agreed to not seek the death penalty against him. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337719,00.html Illegal Immigrant Worker Sentenced in Slaying of Actress Adrienne Shelly], ''[[Associated Press]]'', March 13, 2008</ref>

*2008 - Diego Pillco, a 20-year-old from Ecuador, pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter of actress Adrienne Shelly. Pillco was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Pillco admitted strangling Shelly and then hanging her body to make it look like a suicide. The judge said Pillco would be subject to immediate deportation upon release from prison. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337719,00.html Illegal Immigrant Worker Sentenced in Slaying of Actress Adrienne Shelly], ''[[Associated Press]]'', March 13, 2008</ref>

*2008 - Edwin Ramos, killed three people on their way home from a family picnic. Ramos had been arrested multiple times before the killings (once for mugging a pregnant woman), but the city of San Francisco shielded him from deportation. <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/20/MNK011MAFR.DTL</ref>

==Statistics==

The amount of people immigrating to the United States illegally has declined since 2001. People who formerly moved back and forth across the border (working the agricultural fields in the US in the summer and wintering in a village in the winter) has declined, and instead they tremain in the U.S. The estimated number of illegal immigrants in the United States in 2005 was about 12 million. <ref>http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0603/charts.immigration/frameset.exclude.html?eref=yahoo</ref> <ref>[http://www.house.gov/mccaul/pdf/Investigaions-Border-Report.pdf A Line In The Sand] House Committee on Homeland Security</ref>

$397 billion dollars have been paid to families containing illegal immigrants through social services since 1996. Most of the money goes to schooling for U.S. citizens and for children.<ref>http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersf134</ref>

The number of illegal aliens who are in prison is over 300,000, about 3% of the total.<ref> The number of convicted criminal aliens in federal prison at the end of 2003 was 46,063; in state prisons and local jails here were 262,105.[http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html online]</ref>

Sex offenders comprised 2% of illegals who have been arrested. Nearly one million sex crimes were committed by illegal immigrants in the United States, in the seven years 1999-2006. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. <ref>[http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration] Violent Crimes Institute, 2006</ref>

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household. Most of the costs were incurred by U.S. citizens, however, not by the illegals. On average, the costs that illegal households impose are less than half that of other households. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs by illegals tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. <ref>[http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html The High Cost of Cheap Labor] Center For Immigration Studies</ref>

California spent more than 11 billion dollars per year on illegal immigrants. California is seeking the federal government to bail them out of their financial deficit.

<blockquote>
'' There are some 7 million illegal immigrants in this country who lack health insurance, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.'' [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090912/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul]
</blockquote>

===2010 Statistics===
Data compilled from [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] and [[Department of Homeland Security]] reports indicate:

* 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.
* 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.
* 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles , Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
* 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals
* 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and Federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually
* 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in [[California]], [[New Mexico]], Nevada, Arizona and [[Texas]] are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
* 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens
* 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or "[[transport coyotes]]".
* 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.
* 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for
the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens
* 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for
the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.
* 380,000 plus "anchor babies" were born in the US to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.
* 97.2% of all costs incurred from those illegal births were paid by the American taxpayers.

== See also ==
*[[Latino]]
*[[Xenophobia]]
*[[Lozano v. Hazleton]]
*[[Elvira Arellano]]
*[[Reno v. Flores]]

==Bibliography==
* David W. Haines, Karen E. Rosenblum. ''Illegal Immigration in America: A Reference Handbook'' (Greenwood Press, 1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/111894645?title=Illegal%20Immigration%20in%20America%3a%20%20A%20Reference%20Handbook online edition]
* Pierre Hauser, ''Illegal Aliens'' (1990)
* Jeffrey S. Passel, "Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics," Pew Hispanic Center Reports and fact Sheets. (June 14, 2005), [http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=46 online]
* Claudia Sadowski-Smith. "Unskilled Labor Migration and the Illegality Spiral: Chinese, European, and Mexican Indocumentados in the United States, 1882–2007," ''American Quarterly,'' Volume 60, Number 3, September 2008, pp. 779-804 [http://muse.uq.edu.au/login?uri=/journals/american_quarterly/v060/60.3.sadowski-smith.html in Project Muse]
* Aristide R. Zolberg, ''A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America'' (2006)
* TRAC REPORTS "''Border Patrol Expands But Growth Rate After 9/11 Much Less Than Before Division Between North/South Border Little Changed''" April 4, 2006 [http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/143/]

==External links==
*[http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/11/reasons_to_vote_for_mccain_rea.php About Illegal Immigration], [[Right Wing News]]
*[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/day-one-gop-congressman-introduces-bill-to-end-birthright-citizenship/ Congressman Introduces Bill to End ‘Birthright Citizenship’]

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Immigration]]
[[Category:Political Terms]]
[[Category:Social Problems]]

Talk:Arizona's 2010 Immigration Act

2012-05-02T06:38:00Z

Muteswan: /* Questions */ Three fundamental questions

== Excellent! ==
Good work, William! I might suggest that you include some of the background on the controversy, especially the fact that the Arizona law is far milder than the Federal statutes, which no one, including Obama, Holder and the DNC, have ever objected to. The "protests" by the left seem to be nothing other than a pedestrian "Red Herring".... --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:48, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
:Thanks for your advice, but today and tommorrow, I'm going to be working on a video that will be up on youtube a few days from today, which will promote this new article I created. Also, I don't know much about the detailed history of the Arizona law. In the meantime, if you or anyone else know more about it than I, can you help me out with that and other needed updates and changes if you wish? That will be of great help to me and will save me a lot of time. God bless you all!!! [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 16:27, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::Not about the history of the AZ law, but the federal statutes allow for agents of the Federal Government to stop anyone, at anytime, for reason or not, and demand their "papers". They can detain anyone, which is far more draconian than the Arizona law the liberals are complaining about.....--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:10, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
:::Ok, I'll see if I can work on that tommorrow Thursday morning. [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 22:11, 26 May 2010 (EDT)
::::I was only able to find information and a summary of Mexico’s immigration policy, but I can’t find any place that has information on and summarizes U.S immigration policy, which I know, like you said, is less lax on illegal immigrants than Arizona’s new immigration bill. Need some help on that… [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 11:01, 27 May 2010 (EDT)

'''No. The Federal Law is far more draconian than Arizona's.''' That is the salient point. I suggest a Google search....I have seen comparisons on Michelle Malkin's site and O'Reilly's for sure, possibly Hannity's. The whole point is the "protests" about the AZ law are totally contrived, liberal clap-trap. Where were the protests about the Federal law? It allows Federal Officers to stop and detain anyone, even you or I, for any reason whatsoever, no matter if we didn't even break a law....and the Arizona law has safeguards in place to prevent that kind of thing from happening. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:35, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:I reworded a bit the first 2 questions to liberals and the last section's title to reflect a bit more on the point you mentioned. Anyway, I found this interesting article that contains some useful for the U.S immigration policy vs. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 section, but I don’t know what to write from this. What should we take from this? [http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0610/If-the-Arizona-immigration-law-is-misguided-so-is-Obama-s-criminal-alien-roundup-program] [[User: Willminator|Willminator]] 16:53, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questions ==

I'm not sure the tone of the article is appropriate. While I agree, and it is obvious, that the bill does not beg racial profiling, asking "liberals" to read the article in the article ("Liberals, read the new law for yourselves once and for all, please.") and then later posing questions to them makes this work seem like a pseudo-homework assignment as opposed to an encyclopedia article--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:24, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
:Yeah, I feel like the patronizing tone of the article is more counter-productive than anything, encouraging liberals to reaffirm their beliefs rather than take a second look.[[User:Fasdfad|Fasdfad]] 07:48, 19 August 2011 (EDT)

Three more questions:

1. Did it occur to anyone that it is illegal to be illegal?

2. Whether a state can defend the national borders that may be an open question, but did anyone notice that Arizona is trying to defend the Arizona's borders?

3. ''"We are all immigrants"''; Yes, almost all Americans are descendants of immigrants; but of legal ones. "''We have to show compassion.''" Question: Does compassion mean that America should let in ALL the poor and oppressed people of the world? If not, then why should we favor those who force their way illegally?

Muteswan

Ornithosis

2012-05-01T22:10:57Z

Muteswan: /* Follow-up precautions */ better word

==Description==

Ornithosis (meaning "bird disase", from Greek ornithos "bird") also called Psittacosis, Parrot Disease or Parrot Fever, is a serious human disease with mortality ranging from 1% when treated with antiobiotics, to 20% when untreated. The bacteria (Chlamydia psittaci) invade people by breathing-in an invisible dust from infected birds. Most of the infected birds carry the disease without becoming sick and without any visible symptoms, a few die within three weeks.

==Causes==

Although all birds can be carriers of this disease, parrots, parakeets, macaws, cockatiels, pigeons (widespread), turkeys, ducks, chicken, finches and canary birds have been most frequently involved in transmission to people, with parrots on top of this list, and canary birds at the bottom. Related diseases happen also among sheep and tortoises. Several cases of human-to-human infection have also been reported. The very same disease, when acquired from any kind of a parrots (order Psittaciformes) is called Psittacosis; when acquired from any other kind of bird, a generic name Ornitosis is used.

==Symptoms==

The symptoms start after 1-2 weeks of exposure, initially mildly, with subsequent aggravation. Initially symptoms may include: fever, shivering, sensitivity to light, muscle pains, bleeding from nose, abdominal pains, nausea or vomiting, restlessness. The second phase may include: endocarditis (inflamation of heart valves), hepatitis, painful caughing, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and potentially deadly sepsis and septic shock (a whole-body inflamation).

==Diagnosis==

Diagnosis is possible (Levinthal-Cole-Lillie makrophages present) but in real life diagnosis is difficult, and likely to be mis-diagnosed as flu or pneumonia. According to CDC „since 1996, fewer than 50 confirmed cases were reported in the United States each year. Many more cases may occur that are not correctly diagnosed or reported.“ Larger outbreaks happen from time to time. Suspicion of sittacosis /ornitosis should be considered especially with the following symptoms on top of the forementioned: brachycardia (slow pulse) in spite of fever, enlargement of spleen. muscle aches with their tension, spots in the face skin. The increase in antibodies count, four-fold typically in sittacosis /ornitosis, may be misleadingly subdued by the use of antibiotics.

==Treatment==

Treatment with antibiotics is almost always effective (with the exception of heart-valve inflamation, since heart valves themselves are not supplied with blood), unless treatment started too late. Doxycycline, Docycline hyclate administered intavenously in severe cases,Tetracycline hydrochloride, Chloramphenicol palmitate, have been successfully used. In very severe cases treatment should focus on supporting the vital functions. After recovering, the antibiotic treatment should continue for two weeks.

===Follow-up precautions===

After returning home it is a good precaution to immediately and thoroughly wash (with bleach added to the water) the previously used bedding sheets and clothing.
You can still have long-lasting effects on heart (myocarditis), joints (arthritis), brain (encephalitis, meningitis, paralysis) or eyes (keratoconjunctivitis). Those effects are rare, but this fact does not help those people who have them.
Than think twice before approaching any bird, and especially before considering working in a pet store.

==References==

Several sources have been used, in first place the website of Center for Disease Control and Prevention (US Department of Health and Human Services).

Ornithosis

2012-05-01T21:31:57Z

Muteswan: /* Description */ spelling error plus another name added plus a term explanation

==Description==

Ornithosis (meaning "bird disase", from Greek ornithos "bird") also called Psittacosis, Parrot Disease or Parrot Fever, is a serious human disease with mortality ranging from 1% when treated with antiobiotics, to 20% when untreated. The bacteria (Chlamydia psittaci) invade people by breathing-in an invisible dust from infected birds. Most of the infected birds carry the disease without becoming sick and without any visible symptoms, a few die within three weeks.

==Causes==

Although all birds can be carriers of this disease, parrots, parakeets, macaws, cockatiels, pigeons (widespread), turkeys, ducks, chicken, finches and canary birds have been most frequently involved in transmission to people, with parrots on top of this list, and canary birds at the bottom. Related diseases happen also among sheep and tortoises. Several cases of human-to-human infection have also been reported. The very same disease, when acquired from any kind of a parrots (order Psittaciformes) is called Psittacosis; when acquired from any other kind of bird, a generic name Ornitosis is used.

==Symptoms==

The symptoms start after 1-2 weeks of exposure, initially mildly, with subsequent aggravation. Initially symptoms may include: fever, shivering, sensitivity to light, muscle pains, bleeding from nose, abdominal pains, nausea or vomiting, restlessness. The second phase may include: endocarditis (inflamation of heart valves), hepatitis, painful caughing, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and potentially deadly sepsis and septic shock (a whole-body inflamation).

==Diagnosis==

Diagnosis is possible (Levinthal-Cole-Lillie makrophages present) but in real life diagnosis is difficult, and likely to be mis-diagnosed as flu or pneumonia. According to CDC „since 1996, fewer than 50 confirmed cases were reported in the United States each year. Many more cases may occur that are not correctly diagnosed or reported.“ Larger outbreaks happen from time to time. Suspicion of sittacosis /ornitosis should be considered especially with the following symptoms on top of the forementioned: brachycardia (slow pulse) in spite of fever, enlargement of spleen. muscle aches with their tension, spots in the face skin. The increase in antibodies count, four-fold typically in sittacosis /ornitosis, may be misleadingly subdued by the use of antibiotics.

==Treatment==

Treatment with antibiotics is almost always effective (with the exception of heart-valve inflamation, since heart valves themselves are not supplied with blood), unless treatment started too late. Doxycycline, Docycline hyclate administered intavenously in severe cases,Tetracycline hydrochloride, Chloramphenicol palmitate, have been successfully used. In very severe cases treatment should focus on supporting the vital functions. After recovering, the antibiotic treatment should continue for two weeks.

===Follow-up precautions===

After returning home it is a good precaution to immediately and thoroughly wash (with bleach added to the water) the previously used bedding sheets and clothing.
You can still have long-lasting effects on heart (myocarditis), joints (arthritis), brain (encephalitis, meningitis, paralysis) or eyes (keratoconjunctivitis). Those effects are rare, but this fact does not help those people who have them.
Than think twice before approaching any bird, and especially before considering working in a pet shop.

==References==

Several sources have been used, in first place the website of Center for Disease Control and Prevention (US Department of Health and Human Services).

Talk:Essay:New Liberal Terms

2012-05-01T21:16:41Z

Muteswan: A "talk" remark that probably deserves a place in an article.

Not only which words are used, but also which words are not used - is a telling sign. After so many years of existence of Wikipedia, as of May 1, 2012, typing there the word "upbringing" has been answered: "The page "Upbringing" does not exist." Liberals want children to be educated by secular schools and "raised" by parents, not instructed by them, and this is the predominant reality of America, for many decades now. If parents instruct and guide their children, they qualify for a visit from a "child protection agency", checking for "emotional abuse". It is so simple: "If you want to know the future of any country, look at its children's upbringing". Is not it self-evident?

Ornithosis

2012-05-01T17:26:46Z

Muteswan: Bird-related disease called Ornitosis, Psittacosis or Parrot Fever

Description

Ornitosis, also called Psittacosis or Parrot Fever, is a serious human disease with mortality ranging from 1% when treated with antiobiotics, to 20% when untreated. The bacteria (Chlamydia psittaci) invade people by breathing-in an invisible dust from infected birds. Most of the infected birds carry the disease without becoming sick and without any visible symptoms, a few die within three weeks.

Causes

Although all birds can be carriers of this disease, parrots, parakeets, macaws, cockatiels, pigeons (widespread), turkeys, ducks, chicken, finches and canary birds have been most frequently involved in transmission to people, with parrots on top of this list, and canary birds at the bottom. Related diseases happen also among sheep and tortoises. Several cases of human-to-human infection have also been reported. The very same disease, when acquired from any kind of a parrots (order Psittaciformes) is called Psittacosis; when acquired from any other kind of bird, a generic name Ornitosis is used.

Symptoms

The symptoms start after 1-2 weeks of exposure, initially mildly, with subsequent aggravation. Initially symptoms may include: fever, shivering, sensitivity to light, muscle pains, bleeding from nose, abdominal pains, nausea or vomiting, restlessness. The second phase may include: endocarditis (inflamation of heart valves), hepatitis, painful caughing, severe pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and potentially deadly sepsis and septic shock (a whole-body inflamation).

Diagnosis

Diagnosis is possible (Levinthal-Cole-Lillie makrophages present) but in real life diagnosis is difficult, and likely to be mis-diagnosed as flu or pneumonia. According to CDC „since 1996, fewer than 50 confirmed cases were reported in the United States each year. Many more cases may occur that are not correctly diagnosed or reported.“ Larger outbreaks happen from time to time. Suspicion of sittacosis /ornitosis should be considered especially with the following symptoms on top of the forementioned: brachycardia (slow pulse) in spite of fever, enlargement of spleen. muscle aches with their tension, spots in the face skin. The increase in antibodies count, four-fold typically in sittacosis /ornitosis, may be misleadingly subdued by the use of antibiotics.

Treatment

Treatment with antibiotics is almost always effective (with the exception of heart-valve inflamation, since heart valves themselves are not supplied with blood), unless treatment started too late. Doxycycline, Docycline hyclate administered intavenously in severe cases,Tetracycline hydrochloride, Chloramphenicol palmitate, have been successfully used. In very severe cases treatment should focus on supporting the vital functions. After recovering, the antibiotic treatment should continue for two weeks.

Follow-up precautions

After returning home it is a good precaution to immediately and thoroughly wash (with bleach added to the water) the previously used bedding sheets and clothing.
You can still have long-lasting effects on heart (myocarditis), joints (arthritis), brain (encephalitis, meningitis, paralysis) or eyes (keratoconjunctivitis). Those effects are rare, but this fact does not help those people who have them.
Than think twice before approaching any bird, and especially before considering working in a pet shop.

References:

Several sources have been used, in first place the website of Center for Disease Control and Prevention (US Department of Health and Human Services). For section „Treatment“ information from Wikipedia has been used.

Talk:African gray parrot

2012-05-01T02:11:14Z

Muteswan:

The removal of the warning about a very serious health hazard related to contacts with parrots
"People can contract psittacosis, a serious bacterial infection with 1-20% mortality, by even breathing-in the invisible dust in the vicinity of any kind of a parrot."
on the technical basis that it should be a separate article, was in my opinion a sad mistake, with a real potential of hurting people.
:What you would do is two things about this subject. The first is go to [[Parrot]], which is a general article on the subject, and create a subtopic briefly describing the health risks associated with pet birds. The second is to create a separate article on [[Psittacosis]], going into detail about the disease, its origins, mortality/infection rates, treatments, etc.
:The thing here I'm trying to point out is that this subject does not belong in an article about a specific bird species, unless such a disease only affects that particular bird, and no other. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:34, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

Hello Karajou, I really appreciate your guidance, since I am a newcomer here. I will follow your advice. Muteswan

Talk:African gray parrot

2012-04-30T16:13:03Z

Muteswan: Appeal to reverse the decision

African gray parrot

2012-04-29T15:03:23Z

Muteswan: Some information added

{{Taxonomy
|name=African gray parrot
|image=African gray parrot.jpg
|caption=
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=Tetrapoda
|class=Aves
|subclass=Neornithes
|infraclass=Neoaves
|superorder=Psittacimorphae
|order=Psittaciformes
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|families=
|family=Psittacidae
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=Psittacini
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=Psittacus
|subgenus=
|species=P. erithacus
|binomialname=
|syn=
|sub=P. erithacus erithacus P. erithacus timneh
|alt=
|regionimg=
|pop=
|conservation=
}}
The '''African Gray Parrot''' (''Psittacus erithacus'') is a well-known [[species]] of [[parrot]] in the family [[Psittacidae]], native to [[Africa]]. This is one of the most intelligent species of parrots. It can, and loves to, mimic almost any sound, e.g. that of a cat or of a steam locomotive.
People can contract psittacosis, a serious bacterial infection with 1-20% mortality, by even breathing-in the invisible dust in the vicinity of any kind of a parrot.

There are two subspecies, the better-known nominal subspecies (''P. e. erithacus'') and the lesser-nown, smaller Timneh subspecies (''P. e. timneh'').

[[Category: Parrots]][[Category:African Tropical Parrots]]