Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal creep

2011-03-17T05:24:43Z

NVConservative: That was a bad use of "scholars," sorry

'''Liberal creep''' is [[liberal bias]] that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.

Former [[Utah]] state Sen. Bill Wright may have been the first to coin this term in spring 2008 when he "warned of liberal creep — the 'education of [[indoctrinate|indoctrination]]' — in which the media peddle "[[socialism]] and programs. We have been so dumbed-down, so indoctrinated with all this information we’re in a haze; we can’t see through it. We must find out for ourselves."<ref>http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=5450FFC0-14D1-13A2-9FC3560D929110B0</ref>

Examples of '''liberal creep''' include:
*[[Ronald Reagan]] left the [[White House]] with the best approval ratings of any president, up to that time, at the end of his term, yet the [[media]] and history books have since relentlessly tried to downplay and distort his political achievements.
*Reverse to the above example, [[Bill Clinton]] <ref> Clinton left office with a higher approval rating than Reagan. [http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm] </ref> left office with crimes of perjury and adultery yet liberal creep ensures that this is downplayed and distorted.
*Many early scientists such as [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Galileo Galilei]] were heavily influenced by Christianity and would never have made their important discoveries without their faith in the [[Jesus Christ|Lord Almighty]], yet that faith has since been downplayed in [[liberal]] [[atheistic]] [[public school]] textbooks and [[Wikipedia]].<ref>For example, the Wikipedia entry on Isaac Newton completely omits how he was a fundamentalist who read the Bible daily and derived his inspiration and motivation from it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton]</ref> <ref>Wikipedia has a comprehensive article detailing Newton's religious views that utilizes similar content and references. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views]</ref>
*The ferocity and savageness of the Native Americans towards American settlers has gradually been downplayed, while the relocation of the Cherokee has been gradually inflated until some liberal textbooks treat it as an atrocity comparable to the [[Holocaust]].

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Liberal creep

2011-03-17T05:24:20Z

NVConservative: Add example of liberal creep

'''Liberal creep''' is [[liberal bias]] that gradually creeps or distorts an entry, definition, explanation, description, or historical account.

Former [[Utah]] state Sen. Bill Wright may have been the first to coin this term in spring 2008 when he "warned of liberal creep — the 'education of [[indoctrinate|indoctrination]]' — in which the media peddle "[[socialism]] and programs. We have been so dumbed-down, so indoctrinated with all this information we’re in a haze; we can’t see through it. We must find out for ourselves."<ref>http://www.slweekly.com/index.cfm?do=article.details&id=5450FFC0-14D1-13A2-9FC3560D929110B0</ref>

Examples of '''liberal creep''' include:
*[[Ronald Reagan]] left the [[White House]] with the best approval ratings of any president, up to that time, at the end of his term, yet the [[media]] and history books have since relentlessly tried to downplay and distort his political achievements.
*Reverse to the above example, [[Bill Clinton]] <ref> Clinton left office with a higher approval rating than Reagan. [http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm] </ref> left office with crimes of perjury and adultery yet liberal creep ensures that this is downplayed and distorted.
*Many early scientists such as [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Galileo Galilei]] were heavily influenced by Christianity and would never have made their important discoveries without their faith in the [[Jesus Christ|Lord Almighty]], yet that faith has since been downplayed in [[liberal]] [[atheistic]] [[public school]] textbooks and [[Wikipedia]].<ref>For example, the Wikipedia entry on Isaac Newton completely omits how he was a fundamentalist who read the Bible daily and derived his inspiration and motivation from it.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton]</ref> <ref>Wikipedia has a comprehensive article detailing Newton's religious views that utilizes similar content and references. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views]</ref>
*The ferocity and savageness of the Native Americans towards American settlers has gradually been downplayed, while the relocation of the Cherokee has been gradually inflated until some scholars treat it as an atrocity comparable to the [[Holocaust]].

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Liberalism]]

Mardi Gras

2011-03-17T05:20:26Z

NVConservative: Even Wikipedia calls this day Shrove Tuesday - why are we more secular than them? At the least, we should denote that it is the proper name of the holiday.

'''Fat Tuesday''', more properly known as '''Shrove Tuesday''' and also known as Mardi Gras or Pancake Tuesday, is the day before [[Ash Wednesday]], the day that marks the beginning of the [[Christianity|Christian]] season of [[Lent]]. It is scheduled to occur 46 days before [[Easter]], otherwise known as [[Resurrection Sunday]]. Since the date of Resurrection Sunday varies from year to year, Fat Tuesday can occur on any Tuesday from February 3 to March 9.<ref name="cq">[http://www.coolquiz.com/trivia/explain/docs/fat_tuesday.asp What is Fat Tuesday?]</ref>

Because the [[Catholic Church]] forbids the eating of meat and meat products every Friday during Lent, and because Catholics are required to fast on Ash Wednesday, it became common to make Fat Tuesday a day of feasting and celebration. Historically, however, the day was known as Shrove Tuesday because it was set aside for a sacramental confession of one's sins, hence the penitent was said to have been "shriven," or absolved, of his sins. "Shrove Tuesday" remains the term used on the church calendar. The phrase "Fat Tuesday" was coined to reflect the fact that those about to give up a vice for [[Lent]] would often overindulge on that vice the day before giving it up (e.g., those who were giving up fat would gorge themselves on fat). Obviously, there is no theological basis for this practice.

Mardi Gras is the [[French]] term for Fat Tuesday, and the holiday was brought to the [[United States]] by the [[French]]. The very first Mardi Gras celebration was believed to have been observed in 1703 in Mobile, [[Alabama]].<ref>[http://www3.kumc.edu/diversity/other/mardigra.html Mardi Gras or Fat Tuesday (United States)]</ref> However [[New Orleans]], [[Louisiana]] is the city most associated with Mardi Gras. In New Orleans it is an official holiday, and has been an event for two centuries, except during the two World Wars.<ref name="cq" /> Every year, residents and guests stage elaborate and boisterous parades and balls.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Holidays]]

Birth control pill

2011-03-17T05:14:49Z

NVConservative: Information about chemical abortions. Previous user was not entirely disingenuous.

The '''birth control pill''' (often just ''''the pill'''') is a carcinogenic method of female contraception that forces the unnatural release of [[hormone]]s. Most modern birth control pills use a combination of [[estrogen]] and [[progesterone]] to prevent egg release. The usual cycle is 21 days of the hormone treatments followed by 7 days off. It is during this 7 day off period when the [[menstruation]] cycle occurs.<ref>http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_birth.html</ref>

It is possible for eggs to still release and fertilization to occur. In theory, the hormone combination from the pill prevents the [[ovum]] from attaching to the [[uterus|uterine lining]], and therefore does not allow the normal cycle of [[pregnancy]] to commence. However, in 4-15% of fertilizations, implantation of the ovum actually does occur, and the pill induces early escape ovulation.<ref>http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html</ref> Thus, women who use birth control pills for extended periods of time while sexually active are mathematically almost guaranteed at least one early chemical abortion, which has led to the birth control pill being nicknamed the "abortion" pill by some.

"A meta-analysis published in the October [2006] issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings indicts oral contraceptives as putting premenopausal women at significantly increased risk for breast cancer, especially women who use them prior to having a child."<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061030143351.htm</ref> The World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as a group one carcinogen.<ref>http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html</ref>

Research indicates that use of the pill may increase the risk of [[breast cancer]], the most common cancer in women, by 44%, according to an analysis of 34 different studies.<ref>http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/8014817.html</ref> There is also an increased risk of cervical and liver cancer.{{fact}}

The pill will not prevent [[STD]]s, and as such is not marketed or prescribed as a means of controlling the spread of STDs. The pill is also not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. [[Abstinence]] is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective against pregnancy and STDs.

The [[Catholic Church]] has condemned the use of the pill as a birth control method.{{fact}}

==References==
<References/>

[[category:contraception]]

Real America

2011-03-17T05:08:13Z

NVConservative: Specify!

'''Real America''' is a term used to describe the real spirit and attitude of the [[United States]]. "Real America" generally refers to small-town values, [[gun rights|gun ownership]], religious followers, and [[conservative]] ideology. [[John McCain]] used the term to describe citizens in central [[Pennsylvania]], whereas Palin used the term in [[South Carolina]] (at least). [[Liberal]]s do not believe in this term and do not acknowledge that small towns are the core of the country.

[[Sarah Palin]] popularized the term during the 2008 Presidential Election, but it predates her by several years; notably [[Glenn Beck]] wrote a book in 2003 entitled "The '''Real America''': Messages From the Heart and Heartland." <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Real-America-Messages-Heart-Heartland/dp/0743486331#_</ref> The thesis of Beck's work was that liberal pundits have worked hard to undermine America's strength, greatness, and power, and that only Real Americans remain unaffected by this.

The term was also used in 2008 by Republican Rep. Robert Hayes, who observed in a speech in Concord, North Carolina that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve." In making this observation, Hayes, like Beck, appeared to be indicating that being a real American was a matter of political orientation rather than simple geography.

If Real America is considered in a geographic rather than a political sense, then, primarily, [[red state]]s can be considered Real America, but there are some towns in [[blue state]]s (usually not close to cities) that can be described this way.
[[Category:United States]]

==References==
<references/>

Real America

2011-03-17T05:07:21Z

NVConservative: References tag

'''Real America''' is a term used to describe the real spirit and attitude of the [[United States]]. "Real America" generally refers to small-town values, [[gun rights|gun ownership]], religious followers, and [[conservative]] ideology. [[John McCain]] used the term to describe citizens in central [[Pennsylvania]], whereas Palin used the term in [[South Carolina]] (at least). [[Liberal]]s do not believe in this term and do not acknowledge that small towns are the core of the country.

[[Sarah Palin]] popularized the term during the 2008 Presidential Election, but it predates her by several years; notably [[Glenn Beck]] wrote a book in 2003 entitled "The '''Real America''': Messages From the Heart and Heartland." <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Real-America-Messages-Heart-Heartland/dp/0743486331#_</ref> The thesis of Beck's work was that liberal pundits have worked hard to undermine America's strength, greatness, and power, and that only Real Americans remain unaffected by this.

The term was also used in 2008 by Republican Rep. Robert Hayes, who observed in a speech in Concord, North Carolina that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve." In making this observation, Hayes, like Beck, appeared to be indicating that being a real American was a matter of political orientation rather than simple geography.

Primarily, [[red state]]s can be considered Real America, but there are some towns in [[blue state]]s (usually not close to cities) that can be described this way.
[[Category:United States]]

<references/>

Real America

2011-03-17T05:06:53Z

NVConservative: This term predates Sarah Palin!

'''Real America''' is a term used to describe the real spirit and attitude of the [[United States]]. "Real America" generally refers to small-town values, [[gun rights|gun ownership]], religious followers, and [[conservative]] ideology. [[John McCain]] used the term to describe citizens in central [[Pennsylvania]], whereas Palin used the term in [[South Carolina]] (at least). [[Liberal]]s do not believe in this term and do not acknowledge that small towns are the core of the country.

[[Sarah Palin]] popularized the term during the 2008 Presidential Election, but it predates her by several years; notably [[Glenn Beck]] wrote a book in 2003 entitled "The '''Real America''': Messages From the Heart and Heartland." <ref>http://www.amazon.com/Real-America-Messages-Heart-Heartland/dp/0743486331#_</ref> The thesis of Beck's work was that liberal pundits have worked hard to undermine America's strength, greatness, and power, and that only Real Americans remain unaffected by this.

The term was also used in 2008 by Republican Rep. Robert Hayes, who observed in a speech in Concord, North Carolina that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve." In making this observation, Hayes, like Beck, appeared to be indicating that being a real American was a matter of political orientation rather than simple geography.

Primarily, [[red state]]s can be considered Real America, but there are some towns in [[blue state]]s (usually not close to cities) that can be described this way.
[[Category:United States]]

Real America

2011-03-17T05:01:56Z

NVConservative: Add information about Robert Hayes

'''Real America''' is a term used by [[Sarah Palin]] and others to describe the real spirit and attitude of the [[United States]]. "Real America" generally refers to small-town values, [[gun rights|gun ownership]], religious followers, and [[conservative]] ideology. [[John McCain]] used the term to describe citizens in central [[Pennsylvania]], whereas Palin used the term in [[South Carolina]] (at least). [[Liberal]]s do not believe in this term and do not acknowledge that small towns are the core of the country.

The term was also used in 2008 by Republican Rep. Robert Hayes, who observed in a speech in Concord, North Carolina that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve." In making this observation, Hayes appeared to be indicating that being a real American was a matter of political orientation rather than simple geography.

Primarily, [[red state]]s can be considered Real America, but there are some towns in [[blue state]]s (usually not close to cities) that can be described this way.
[[Category:United States]]

Nevada

2010-01-14T04:46:51Z

NVConservative: More information about Nevada

{{USState
|name=Nevada
|flag=Nevada_State_Flag.gif
|motto="All for Our Country"
|nick=The Silver State
|capital=Carson City
|language=None
|governor=Jim Gibbons
|gparty=Republican
|senator1=John Ensign
|s1party=Republican
|s1phone=(202) 224-6244
|s1email=http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm Contact
|senator2=Harry Reid
|s2party=Democrat
|s2phone=(202) 224-3542
|s2email=http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm Contact
|population=
|date=October 31, 1864 (36th)
}}
[[Image:Nevada test site.jpg|thumb|200px|left|The first tests of nuclear weapons were conducted in Nevada]]'''Nevada''' is the 7th largest state geographically and the 35th largest state by population in the [[United States]]. Although it is known for legalized [[gambling]] and semi-legalized [[prostitution]],<ref>http://www.jour.unr.edu/outpost/community/archives/com.gormley.prostitute.html</ref> its voters are generally [[conservative]] and voted for [[George W. Bush]] twice, qualifying it as a [[red state]]. Further, its non-Las Vegas voter overwhelmingly expressed a preference for [[John McCain]] over [[Barack Obama]]. Its senators include [[Harry Reid]], the [[Democratic]] Senate Majority Leader, and John Ensign, a Republican.

Nevada was admitted to the Union on October 31, 1864 by [[Abraham Lincoln]] during the [[Civil War]]; as a result, one of the State's mottos is "Battle Born."<ref>http://www.leg.state.nv.us/general/FACTS.cfm</ref>

==Notable people from Nevada==
*Andre Agassi, one of the most successful tennis players of all time, was born in Las Vegas.
*Gee Jon, the first person to be executed in a gas chamber, was executed at Nevada State Prison.
*Pat Nixon, former First Lady, was born in Ely.
*[[Harry Reid]], the current Senate Majority Leader and the first Mormon to attain this position, was born in Searchlight.
*[[Karl Rove]], President George W. Bush's Chief of Staff, grew up in Sparks.
*[[Danny Tarkanian]], real estate developer, intends to unseat Harry Reid in the 2010 Senatorial election.

== References ==
<references/>

{{USstates}}
[[Category:States of the United States]]
[[Category:Western United States]]

Illegal drugs

2010-01-14T04:42:47Z

NVConservative: /* Arguments for legalization */ How did this liberal bias creep in here??!

[[Image:Drugs.jpg|right]]
[[Drugs]] are any chemical substances that effect a physical, mental, emotional, or behavioral change in an individual. [[Drug abuse]] is the use of any licit or illicit chemical substance that results in physical, mental, emotional, or behavioral impairment in an individual. '''Illegal drugs''' are drugs whose possession and/or use is forbidden by law (in most jurisdictions) due to their harmfulness and, usually, lack of therapeutic use. [[The Bible]] generally prohibits the use of drugs such as these. The most common illegal drugs are:

*[[Cannabis]] (''Cannabis sativa'') is the common hemp plant, which provides hallucinogens with some varying psychoactive properties. Other names for the Cannabis plant prepared for use are: Marijuana, Pot, Acapulco gold, Grass, Weed and Reefer. The main psychoactive ingredient within Cannabis is Delta-9-Tetrahydroannabinol (THC). There are three different preparations of Cannabis: Marijuana (Ground flower buds and/or leaves), Hashish (Pressed Cannabis Trichomes) and Hashish Oil (Ethanol extracted Cannabinoids). Although marijuana is illegal there are many groups researching its therapeutic properties and painkilling properties for people with chronic pain or disease.

*[[Coca]] (mostly ''Erythroxylum coca'') is a bush with leaves that contain the stimulant used to make cocaine. Coca is not to be confused with cocoa, which comes from cacao seeds and is used in making chocolate, cocoa, and cocoa butter.

*[[Cocaine]] is a stimulant derived from the leaves of the coca bush.

*[[Hallucinogens]] are drugs that affect sensation, thinking, self-awareness, and emotion. Hallucinogens include LSD (acid, microdot), mescaline and peyote (mexc, buttons, cactus), amphetamine variants (PMA, STP, DOB, DOM, 2C-I, 2C-E), phencyclidine (PCP, angel dust, hog), phencyclidine analogues (PCE, PCPy, TCP), and others (psilocybin, psilocyn, DMT, 5-MeO-DMT, ayahuasca).

*[[Heroin]] is a semisynthetic derivative of morphine.

*[[Opium]] is the brown, gummy exudate of the incised, unripe seedpod of the opium poppy.

*[[Opium poppy]] (''Papaver somniferum'') is the source for the natural and semisynthetic narcotics.

*[[Poppy straw]] is the entire cut and dried opium poppy-plant material, other than the seeds. Opium is extracted from poppy straw in commercial operations that produce the drug for medical use.

*[[Qat]] (kat, khat) is a stimulant from the buds or leaves of Catha edulis that is chewed or drunk as tea.

Legal (pharmaceutical) drugs are also often used for recreational (i.e., non-therapeutic) purposes. Such use is usually illegal. Drugs often illegally abused in this manner include:

*Some cough suppressants, mainly any formulation which contains [[dextromethorphan]] (Robitussin, Delsym), are used in high doses to produce dissociative hallucinations, much like phencyclidine or ketamine. Althouth available over the counter in most states, frequent or long-term use of these high doses can lead to toxic psychosis.

*[[Depressants]] (sedatives) are drugs that reduce tension and anxiety and include chloral hydrate, barbiturates (Amytal, Nembutal, Seconal, phenobarbital), benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, Ativan), methaqualone (Quaalude or Mandrax), glutethimide (Doriden), and others (Equanil, Placidyl, Valmid).

*[[Narcotics]] are drugs that relieve pain, often induce sleep or a type of "euphoria," and refer to opium, opium derivatives, and synthetic substitutes. Natural narcotics include opium (paregoric, parepectolin), [[morphine]] (MS-Contin, Roxanol), codeine (Tylenol #3, Empirin with codeine), and thebaine. Semisynthetic narcotics include heroin (horse, smack), and hydromorphone (Dilaudid). Synthetic narcotics include meperidine or Pethidine (Demerol), methadone (Dolophine, Methadose, Actiq), and others (Darvon, Vicodin, Oxycontin).

*[[Stimulants]] are drugs that relieve mild depression, increase energy and activity, and include cocaine (coke, snow, crack), amphetamines (Desoxyn, Dexedrine), ephedrine, ecstasy (clarity, essence, doctor, Adam), phenmetrazine (Preludin), methylphenidate (Ritalin), and others (Cylert, Sanorex, Tenuate).

==Arguments against legalization==
Although [[liberal]]s attempt to frame arguments for legalizing particular or all recreational drugs, there are compelling arguments to the contrary.

*Crime. Some argue that the primary immorality associated with illicit drugs is the resultant drug-related crime. However, their solution seems to be to sully the [[United States]] government by having it take over these criminal enterprises and play the part of the gangsters, feeding the addictions of unsuspecting children. Celerino Castillo, a twenty-year veteran of law enforcement (including twelve years in the [[Drug Enforcement Administration]]), insists that legalization is the only real solution to eliminating drug cartels and gangs.<ref>[http://mapinc.org/newsleap/v08/n258/a06.html Drug War Doing Irreparable Harm], Brownsville Herald, 3 March 2008.</ref> Essentially, Castillo argues that the [[United States]] government should ''act'' as a drug cartel or gang.

*[[Human Rights]]. It has been suggested by [[liberals]] that it is a human right to have access to recreational drugs, and that it is immoral of the government to prevent this. This is similar to the liberal stance on premarital sex, homosexual sex, bestiality, and necrophilia.

*Futility of criminalization. Some argue that the laws on illicit drugs cannot be effectively enforced and drugs are easy to procure. When a law cannot be effectively enforced, it is of questionable merit. These dangerous people would have us believe that if there were difficulty enforcing [[rape]], the logical solution would be to legalize it.

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/drugs/ What Liberals Say - Category: Drugs], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Illegal Drugs]]

British Rail

2010-01-14T04:38:00Z

NVConservative: Remove all British misspellings except the one in the title of Anson's book, that one can't be helped I guess.

'''British Rail''' (in full, the British Railways Board) was the nationalized railway of [[Britain]] from 1948 until the system was privatised piecemeal in the 1990s. It included almost all the standard gauge railways in Great Britain, with the exception of the [[London Underground]], the [[Tyne and Wear Metro]], Merseyrail, tram lines, and some industrial and colliery lines; railways in [[Northern Ireland]] were run by a separate authority.

==1977-90==
Conservative Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] led the drive to privatize British Rail in the 1980s. In attempting to meet government-mandated profitability and efficiency goals, the British Rail Board behaved not simply as the government directed, but rather according to internal needs and initiatives. Even in the early days of movement toward privatization, the board tried to develop its own policies, and, though it soon became clear that full divestiture was to be the goal, events proceeded through various stages, rather than in a forced march along a government-designed path.<Ref> Terence R. Gourvish, "British Rail's "Business-Led" Organization, 1977-1990: Government-Industry Relations in Britain's Public Sector." ''Business History Review'' 1990 64(1): 109-149. </ref>

==Post privatization==
Subsequent to privatization, Britain's network of tracks and stations has been owned and maintained by Railtrack, and subsequently Network Rail, while train services have been managed by numerous regional Train Operating Companies (TOCs), who lease rolling stock from a number of leasing companies such as HSBC Rail.

Although privatization has brought a huge amount of investment, large efficiency savings and improved infrastructure and services, the government has continued to strangle innovation by heavily regulating companies behavior, dictating timetables and service patterns as well as fares, though despite this, since privatization passenger usage and quality of service has soared well above socialized rail systems such as those in France, Spain and the Netherlands.

Efforts by certain rail operators to obtain greater freedom to operate services have met with stiff opposition, with some socialists calling for the entire rail system to be re-nationalized. This agenda came one step nearer to realization in 2002, when the Labor government of [[Tony Blair]] forced Railtrack into bankruptcy, and split its responsibilities between the Strategic Rail Authority and the government controlled company Network Rail.
==Further reading==
* Anson, Mike. ''British Rail 1974-97: From Integration to Privatisation'' (2004) [http://www.amazon.com/British-Rail-1974-97-Integration-Privatisation/dp/0199269092/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243638132&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Bishop, Matthew, et al. ''Privatization and economic performance,'' (1994) 378 pages [http://books.google.com/books?id=3Zzl0O-WjIMC&dq=%22british+rail%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 excerpt and text search]
* Bonavia, Michael R. ''British Rail: The First Twenty-Five Years‎'' (1981) 208 pages
* Gourvish, Terry, and Mike Anson, ''British Rail, 1974-1997: From Integration To Privatisation,'' (2004) 700 pages; [http://books.google.com/books?id=vAlCWxoV1NYC&dq=%22british+rail%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 excerpt and text search]

====references====
<references/>
[[Category:Railroads]]
[[Category:British History]]

Text of The Communist Manifesto

2010-01-14T04:36:43Z

NVConservative: Remove various British misspellings forbidden by Conservapedia Commandments. I'll get the rest later.

MANIFESTO OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

[From the English edition of 1888, edited by Friedrich Engels]

A spectre is haunting [[Europe]]--the spectre of [[Communism]]. All the Powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Czar, Metternich and Guizot, [[French]] Radicals and [[German]] police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as Communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the Opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact.

I. [[Communism]] is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a Manifesto of the party itself.

To this end, Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.

==BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS==

The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.

From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements of the bourgeoisie were developed.

The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.

The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of labour in each single workshop.

Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.

Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce, navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.

We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.

Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable "third estate" of the monarchy (as in France), afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.

The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.

The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.

The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.

The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man's activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.

The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.

The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.

The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians' intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.

The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West.

The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature's forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground--what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.

Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.

A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity--the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.

The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons--the modern working class--the proletarians.

In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed, in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed--a class of labourers, who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.

Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc.

Modern industry has converted the little workshop of the patriarchal master into the great factory of the industrial capitalist. Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the over-looker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself. The more openly this despotism proclaims gain to be its end and aim, the more petty, the more hateful and the more embittering it is.

The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.

No sooner is the exploitation of the labourer by the manufacturer, so far at an end, that he receives his wages in cash, than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

The lower strata of the middle class--the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants--all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by the new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population.

The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.

At this stage the labourers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the whole country, and broken up by their mutual competition. If anywhere they unite to form more compact bodies, this is not yet the consequence of their own active union, but of the union of the bourgeoisie, which class, in order to attain its own political ends, is compelled to set the whole proletariat in motion, and is moreover yet, for a time, able to do so. At this stage, therefore, the proletarians do not fight their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies, the remnants of absolute monarchy, the landowners, the non-industrial bourgeois, the petty bourgeoisie. Thus the whole historical movement is concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie; every victory so obtained is a victory for the bourgeoisie.

But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number; it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalised, in proportion as machinery obliterates all distinctions of labour, and nearly everywhere reduces wages to the same low level. The growing competition among the bourgeois, and the resulting commercial crises, make the wages of the workers ever more fluctuating. The unceasing improvement of machinery, ever more rapidly developing, makes their livelihood more and more precarious; the collisions between individual workmen and individual bourgeois take more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form combinations (Trades Unions) against the bourgeois; they club together in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for these occasional revolts. Here and there the contest breaks out into riots.

Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarians, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus the ten-hours' bill in England was carried.

Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all times, with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for its help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own instruments of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling classes are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the process of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Of all the classes that stand face to face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product. The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.

The "dangerous class," the social scum, that passively rotting mass thrown off by the lowest layers of old society, may, here and there, be swept into the movement by a proletarian revolution; its conditions of life, however, prepare it far more for the part of a bribed tool of reactionary intrigue.

In the conditions of the proletariat, those of old society at large are already virtually swamped. The proletarian is without property; his relation to his wife and children has no longer anything in common with the bourgeois family-relations; modern industrial labour, modern subjection to capital, the same in England as in France, in America as in Germany, has stripped him of every trace of national character. Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just as many bourgeois interests.

All the preceding classes that got the upper hand, sought to fortify their already acquired status by subjecting society at large to their conditions of appropriation. The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property.

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interests of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority. The proletariat, the lowest stratum of our present society, cannot stir, cannot raise itself up, without the whole superincumbent strata of official society being sprung into the air.

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

Hitherto, every form of society has been based, as we have already seen, on the antagonism of oppressing and oppressed classes. But in order to oppress a class, certain conditions must be assured to it under which it can, at least, continue its slavish existence. The serf, in the period of serfdom, raised himself to membership in the commune, just as the petty bourgeois, under the yoke of feudal absolutism, managed to develop into a bourgeois. The modern laborer, on the contrary, instead of rising with the progress of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of his own class. He becomes a pauper, and pauperism develops more rapidly than population and wealth. And here it becomes evident, that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society, and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state, that it has to feed him, instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.

The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

==PROLETARIANS AND COMMUNISTS==

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: (1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. (2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer. They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of Communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.

Or do you mean modern bourgeois private property?

But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage-labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.

To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion.

Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power.

When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into the property of all members of society, personal property is not thereby transformed into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed. It loses its class-character.

Let us now take wage-labour.

The average price of wage-labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence, which is absolutely requisite in bare existence as a labourer. What, therefore, the wage-labourer appropriates by means of his labour, merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence. We by no means intend to abolish this personal appropriation of the products of labour, an appropriation that is made for the maintenance and reproduction of human life, and that leaves no surplus wherewith to command the labour of others. All that we want to do away with, is the miserable character of this appropriation, under which the labourer lives merely to increase capital, and is allowed to live only in so far as the interest of the ruling class requires it.

In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer.

In bourgeois society, therefore, the past dominates the present; in Communist society, the present dominates the past. In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.

And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.

By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.

But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other "brave words" of our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.

You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.

In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.

From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say individuality vanishes.

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.

Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriation.

It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us.

According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital.

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic modes of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

But don't wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc. Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property--historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production--this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you. What you see clearly in the case of ancient property, what you admit in the case of feudal property, you are of course forbidden to admit in the case of your own bourgeois form of property.

Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives.

Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

National differences and antagonisms between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world-market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto.

The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another is put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.

The charges against Communism made from a religious, a philosophical, and, generally, from an ideological standpoint, are not deserving of serious examination.

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man's consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?

What else does the history of ideas prove, than that intellectual production changes its character in proportion as material production is changed? The ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class.

When people speak of ideas that revolutionize society, they do but express the fact, that within the old society, the elements of a new one have been created, and that the dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.

When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

"Undoubtedly," it will be said, "religious, moral, philosophical and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change."

"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc. that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

What does this accusation reduce itself to? The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs.

But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages, viz., the exploitation of one part of society by the other. No wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all the multiplicity and variety it displays, moves within certain common forms, or general ideas, which cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations; no wonder that its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents

of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means

of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive

monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport

in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by

the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and

the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a

common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of

industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries;

gradual abolition of the distinction between town and

country, by a more equable distribution of the population

over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools.

Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form.

Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

===SOCIALIST AND COMMUNIST LITERATURE===

1. REACTIONARY SOCIALISM

A. Feudal Socialism

Owing to their historical position, it became the vocation of the aristocracies of France and England to write pamphlets against modern bourgeois society. In the French revolution of July 1830, and in the English reform agitation, these aristocracies again succumbed to the hateful upstart. Thenceforth, a serious political contest was altogether out of the question. A literary battle alone remained possible. But even in the domain of literature the old cries of the restoration period had become impossible.

In order to arouse sympathy, the aristocracy were obliged to lose sight, apparently, of their own interests, and to formulate their indictment against the bourgeoisie in the interest of the exploited working class alone. Thus the aristocracy took their revenge by singing lampoons on their new master, and whispering in his ears sinister prophecies of coming catastrophe.

In this way arose Feudal Socialism: half lamentation, half lampoon; half echo of the past, half menace of the future; at times, by its bitter, witty and incisive criticism, striking the bourgeoisie to the very heart's core; but always ludicrous in its effect, through total incapacity to comprehend the march of modern history.

The aristocracy, in order to rally the people to them, waved the proletarian alms-bag in front for a banner. But the people, so often as it joined them, saw on their hindquarters the old feudal coats of arms, and deserted with loud and irreverent laughter.

One section of the French Legitimists and "Young England" exhibited this spectacle.

In pointing out that their mode of exploitation was different to that of the bourgeoisie, the feudalists forget that they exploited under circumstances and conditions that were quite different, and that are now antiquated. In showing that, under their rule, the modern proletariat never existed, they forget that the modern bourgeoisie is the necessary offspring of their own form of society.

For the rest, so little do they conceal the reactionary character of their criticism that their chief accusation against the bourgeoisie amounts to this, that under the bourgeois regime a class is being developed, which is destined to cut up root and branch the old order of society.

What they upbraid the bourgeoisie with is not so much that it creates a proletariat, as that it creates a revolutionary proletariat.

In political practice, therefore, they join in all coercive measures against the working class; and in ordinary life, despite their high falutin phrases, they stoop to pick up the golden apples dropped from the tree of industry, and to barter truth, love, and honor for traffic in wool, beetroot-sugar, and potato spirits.

As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has Clerical Socialism with Feudal Socialism.

Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church? Christian Socialism is but the holy, water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat.

B. Petty-Bourgeois Socialism

The feudal aristocracy was not the only class that was ruined by the bourgeoisie, not the only class whose conditions of existence pined and perished in the atmosphere of modern bourgeois society. The mediaeval burgesses and the small peasant proprietors were the precursors of the modern bourgeoisie. In those countries which are but little developed, industrially and commercially, these two classes still vegetate side by side with the rising bourgeoisie.

In countries where modern civilization has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced, in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen.

In countries like France, where the peasants constitute far more than half of the population, it was natural that writers who sided with the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, should use, in their criticism of the bourgeois regime, the standard of the peasant and petty bourgeois, and from the standpoint of these intermediate classes should take up the cudgels for the working class. Thus arose petty-bourgeois Socialism. Sismondi was the head of this school, not only in France but also in England.

This school of Socialism dissected with great acuteness the contradictions in the conditions of modern production. It laid bare the hypocritical apologies of economists. It proved, incontrovertibly, the disastrous effects of machinery and division of labor; the concentration of capital and land in a few hands; overproduction and crises; it pointed out the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeois and peasant, the misery of the proletariat, the anarchy in production, the crying inequalities in the distribution of wealth, the industrial war of extermination between nations, the dissolution of old moral bonds, of the old family relations, of the old nationalities.

In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange, within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

Its last words are: corporate guilds for manufacture, patriarchal relations in agriculture.

Ultimately, when stubborn historical facts had dispersed all intoxicating effects of self-deception, this form of Socialism ended in a miserable fit of the blues.

C. German, or "True," Socialism

The Socialist and Communist literature of France, a literature that originated under the pressure of a bourgeoisie in power, and that was the expression of the struggle against this power, was introduced into Germany at a time when the bourgeoisie, in that country, had just begun its contest with feudal absolutism.

German philosophers, would-be philosophers, and beaux esprits, eagerly seized on this literature, only forgetting, that when these writings immigrated from France into Germany, French social conditions had not immigrated along with them. In contact with German social conditions, this French literature lost all its immediate practical significance, and assumed a purely literary aspect. Thus, to the German philosophers of the eighteenth century, the demands of the first French Revolution were nothing more than the demands of "Practical Reason" in general, and the utterance of the will of the revolutionary French bourgeoisie signified in their eyes the law of pure Will, of Will as it was bound to be, of true human Will generally.

The world of the German literate consisted solely in bringing the new French ideas into harmony with their ancient philosophical conscience, or rather, in annexing the French ideas without deserting their own philosophic point of view.

This annexation took place in the same way in which a foreign language is appropriated, namely, by translation.

It is well known how the monks wrote silly lives of Catholic Saints over the manuscripts on which the classical works of ancient heathendom had been written. The German literate reversed this process with the profane French literature. They wrote their philosophical nonsense beneath the French original. For instance, beneath the French criticism of the economic functions of money, they wrote "Alienation of Humanity," and beneath the French criticism of the bourgeois State they wrote

"dethronement of the Category of the General," and so forth.

The introduction of these philosophical phrases at the back of the French historical criticisms they dubbed "Philosophy of Action," "True Socialism," "German Science of Socialism,"

"Philosophical Foundation of Socialism," and so on.

The French Socialist and Communist literature was thus completely emasculated. And, since it ceased in the hands of the German to express the struggle of one class with the other, he felt conscious of having overcome "French one-sidedness" and of representing, not true requirements, but the requirements of truth; not the interests of the proletariat, but the interests of Human Nature, of Man in general, who belongs to no class, has no reality, who exists only in the misty realm of philosophical fantasy.

This German Socialism, which took its schoolboy task so seriously and solemnly, and extolled its poor stock-in-trade in such mountebank fashion, meanwhile gradually lost its pedantic innocence.

The fight of the German, and especially, of the Prussian bourgeoisie, against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest.

By this, the long wished-for opportunity was offered to "True" Socialism of confronting the political movement with the Socialist demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality, and of preaching to the masses that they had nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by this bourgeois movement. German Socialism forgot, in the nick of time, that the French criticism, whose silly echo it was, presupposed the existence of modern bourgeois society, with its corresponding economic conditions of existence, and the political constitution adapted thereto, the very things whose attainment was the object of the pending struggle in Germany.

To the absolute governments, with their following of parsons, professors, country squires and officials, it served as a welcome scarecrow against the threatening bourgeoisie.

It was a sweet finish after the bitter pills of floggings and bullets with which these same governments, just at that time, dosed the German working-class risings.

While this "True" Socialism thus served the governments as a weapon for fighting the German bourgeoisie, it, at the same time, directly represented a reactionary interest, the interest of the German Philistines. In Germany the petty-bourgeois class, a relic of the sixteenth century, and since then constantly cropping up again under various forms, is the real social basis of the existing state of things.

To preserve this class is to preserve the existing state of things in Germany. The industrial and political supremacy of the bourgeoisie threatens it with certain destruction; on the one hand, from the concentration of capital; on the other, from the rise of a revolutionary proletariat. "True" Socialism appeared to kill these two birds with one stone. It spread like an epidemic.

The robe of speculative cobwebs, embroidered with flowers of rhetoric, steeped in the dew of sickly sentiment, this transcendental robe in which the German Socialists wrapped their sorry "eternal truths," all skin and bone, served to wonderfully increase the sale of their goods amongst such a public. And on its part, German Socialism recognized, more and more, its own calling as the bombastic representative of the petty-bourgeois Philistine.

It proclaimed the German nation to be the model nation, and the German petty Philistine to be the typical man. To every villainous meanness of this model man it gave a hidden, higher, Socialistic interpretation, the exact contrary of its real character. It went to the extreme length of directly opposing the "brutally destructive" tendency of Communism, and of proclaiming its supreme and impartial contempt of all class struggles. With very few exceptions, all the so-called Socialist and Communist publications that now (1847) circulate in Germany belong to the domain of this foul and enervating literature.

2. CONSERVATIVE, OR BOURGEOIS, SOCIALISM

A part of the bourgeoisie is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society.

To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working class, organizers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.

We may cite Proudhon's Philosophie de la Misere as an example of this form.

The Socialistic bourgeois want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They wish for a bourgeoisie without a proletariat. The bourgeoisie naturally conceives the world in which it is supreme to be the best; and bourgeois Socialism develops this comfortable conception into various more or less complete systems. In requiring the proletariat to carry out such a system, and thereby to march straightway into the social New Jerusalem, it but requires in reality, that the proletariat should remain within the bounds of existing society, but should cast away all its hateful ideas concerning the bourgeoisie.

A second and more practical, but less systematic, form of this Socialism sought to depreciate every revolutionary movement in the eyes of the working class, by showing that no mere political reform, but only a change in the material conditions of existence, in economic relations, could be of any advantage to them. By changes in the material conditions of existence, this form of Socialism, however, by no means understands abolition of the bourgeois relations of production, an abolition that can be effected only by a revolution, but administrative reforms, based on the continued existence of these relations; reforms, therefore, that in no respect affect the relations between capital and labour, but, at the best, lessen the cost, and simplify the administrative work, of bourgeois government.

Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression, when, and only when, it becomes a mere figure of speech.

Free trade: for the benefit of the working class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism.

It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois--for the benefit of the working class.

3. CRITICAL-UTOPIAN SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM

We do not here refer to that literature which, in every great modern revolution, has always given voice to the demands of the proletariat, such as the writings of Babeuf and others.

The first direct attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in times of universal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, these attempts necessarily failed, owing to the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as to the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, conditions that had yet to be produced, and could be produced by the impending bourgeois epoch alone. The revolutionary literature that accompanied these first movements of the proletariat had necessarily a reactionary character. It inculcated universal asceticism and social leveling in its crudest form.

The Socialist and Communist systems properly so called, those of Saint-Simon, Fourier, Owen and others, spring into existence in the early undeveloped period, described above, of the struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie (see Section 1. Bourgeois and Proletarians).

The founders of these systems see, indeed, the class antagonisms, as well as the action of the decomposing elements, in the prevailing form of society. But the proletariat, as yet in its infancy, offers to them the spectacle of a class without any historical initiative or any independent political movement.

Since the development of class antagonism keeps even pace with the development of industry, the economic situation, as they find it, does not as yet offer to them the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. They therefore search after a new social science, after new social laws, that are to create these conditions.

Historical action is to yield to their personal inventive action, historically created conditions of emancipation to fantastic ones, and the gradual, spontaneous class-organization of the proletariat to the organization of society specially contrived by these inventors. Future history resolves itself, in their eyes, into the propaganda and the practical carrying out of their social plans.

In the formation of their plans they are conscious of caring chiefly for the interests of the working class, as being the most suffering class. Only from the point of view of being the most suffering class does the proletariat exist for them.

The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favoured. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see in it the best possible plan of the best possible state of society?

Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.

Such fantastic pictures of future society, painted at a time when the proletariat is still in a very undeveloped state and has but a fantastic conception of its own position correspond with the first instinctive yearnings of that class for a general reconstruction of society.

But these Socialist and Communist publications contain also a critical element. They attack every principle of existing society. Hence they are full of the most valuable materials for the enlightenment of the working class. The practical measures proposed in them--such as the abolition of the distinction between town and country, of the family, of the carrying on of industries for the account of private individuals, and of the wage system, the proclamation of social harmony, the conversion of the functions of the State into a mere superintendence of production, all these proposals, point solely to the disappearance of class antagonisms which were, at that time, only just cropping up, and which, in these publications, are recognized in their earliest, indistinct and undefined forms only. These proposals, therefore, are of a purely Utopian character.

The significance of Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism bears an inverse relation to historical development. In proportion as the modern class struggle develops and takes definite shape, this fantastic standing apart from the contest, these fantastic attacks on it, lose all practical value and all theoretical justification. Therefore, although the originators of these systems were, in many respects, revolutionary, their disciples have, in every case, formed mere reactionary sects. They hold fast by the original views of their masters, in opposition to the progressive historical development of the proletariat. They, therefore, endeavor, and that consistently, to deaden the class struggle and to reconcile the class antagonisms. They still dream of experimental realization of their social Utopias, of founding isolated "phalansteres," of establishing

"Home Colonies," of setting up a "Little Icaria"--duodecimo editions of the New Jerusalem--and to realise all these castles in the air, they are compelled to appeal to the feelings and purses of the bourgeois. By degrees they sink into the category of the reactionary conservative Socialists depicted above, differing from these only by more systematic pedantry, and by their fanatical and superstitious belief in the miraculous effects of their social science.

They, therefore, violently oppose all political action on the part of the working class; such action, according to them, can only result from blind unbelief in the new Gospel.

The Owenites in England, and the Fourierists in France, respectively, oppose the Chartists and the Reformistes.

==POSITION OF THE COMMUNISTS IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS EXISTING OPPOSITION PARTIES==

Section II has made clear the relations of the Communists to the existing working-class parties, such as the Chartists in England and the Agrarian Reformers in America.

The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats, against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.

In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.

In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.

In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightaway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!

[[category:Political Science]]
[[category:Historical Documents]]
[[category:Communism]]

Bhagavad Gita

2010-01-14T04:34:13Z

NVConservative: Correct spelling: "realisation" is a forbidden European spelling

[[Image:BGita.gif|right]]
The '''Bhagavad Gita''' is an ancient [[Hindu]] text in written in [[Sanskrit]]. The text is a section of the [[Mahabharata]]. The text consists of [[Krishna]] expounding on philosophy and morality to [[Arjuna]] to prepare him for the battle of [[Kurukshetra]].

In the Bhagavad Gita, the goal of life is to free the mind from selfish desire and to focus on the glory of the Self (Atman), by dedicating one's actions to the divine. The [[Yoga]] way is to engage oneself in a higher form of activity through meditation, action, devotion and knowledge.

''Thus it is established that the cause of triumph over samsara or the perpetual cycle of birth and death is absolute equanimity of perception by beholding the reality that the eternal soul is equally situated in all naturally created beings. One who is also equiposed regarding the dualities and not elated by obtaining something pleasant thinking how lucky am I nor dejected by receiving something unpleasant thinking how unfortunate am I. Such a person endowed with firm resolution reflects that: I will steadfastly cross over the ocean of samsara through the knowledge of atma tattva or realization of the soul. Such a person is free from all doubts and infatuation with delusion which is merely a tendency of the mind. Such a person becomes a knower of the Brahman or spiritual substratum pervading all existence after being instructed by a living knower of the Brahman. Such a person lives their life immersed in the atma or soul which is of the same absolute nature of the Brahman.'' Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary. [http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-05-19.html Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 5, Verse 20]

The primary purpose of the Bhagavad- Gita is to illuminate '''for all''' of humanity the realization of the true nature of divinity; for the highest spiritual conception and the greatest material perfection is to attain '''love of God'''! Its intrinsic beauty is that its knowledge applies to all human beings and does not postulate any sectarian idealogy or secular view.

== See also ==

*[[Chakras]]
*[[Upanishads]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/index-english.html Bhagavad Gita in English]

[[Category:Hinduism]]

Alcoholic drink

2010-01-14T04:32:41Z

NVConservative: /* Wine */ More information about wine.

[[Image:Margarita.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A margarita, a popular alcoholic drink]]
An '''alcoholic drink''' is a beverage which contains [[ethanol]] (C2H5OH), which is an addictive [[psychoactive]] [[depressant]], although the initial effects may resemble that of a [[stimulant]]. Alcohol consumption tends to lower inhibition, slow reaction time and decrease [[dexterity]]. Over-consumption can result in loss of consciousness, coma, or even death. Alcohol has been found in society for thousands of years and in some cases was used in a medicinal capacity. Alcoholic drinks come in a multitude of varieties.

== Beer ==

[[Beer]] is a drink produced through the fermentation of malted grains and the addition of hops. Hops, which became popular in the 15th and 16th centuries, give beer its distinctive bitter taste and act as a natural preservative. There are also many types of beers available, each with its own unique brewing method and history. The most popular type of beer in America is the pilsner, noted for its light golden color due to the use of lightly roasted grains. Gaining in popularity are other types of beer such as porters, lagers, wheat-beer, and ales.

Beer was discovered independently by many societies in the past<ref>[http://www.fosters.com.au/enjoy/beer/history_of_beer.htm History of Beer], ''Fosters Australia''</ref>. In ancient [[Egypt]], beer was used to help provide the calories needed and keep the lower classes happy <ref>[http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/egypt_alcohol.html Ancient Egyptian Alcohol], ''thekeep.com''</ref>. Within [[Christianity]], beer was often made by monks who used the heavy ales to ease hunger pains while fasting<ref>[http://www.eat-online.net/english/habits/beer_in_the_middle_ages.htm Beer in the Middle Ages], ''Eat Online''</ref>. In medieval Europe, beer was frequently the main drink taken by the people, as healthy and wholesome water supplies were not always easily available.

== Wine ==

[[Wine]] is usually made by the fermentation of grapes, but can be made using other fruits, or other parts of plants.
Wines, like beer, come in a variety of types with different bouquets and [[flavor]]s. In ancient times there were many gods of wine that were worshipped<ref>[http://www.wineintro.com/history/religion/index.html Wine, Religion, and Gods], ''Wineintro.com''</ref> (Bacchus, Dionysus, and Geshtin for example). As wine was part of the holy traditions in both Jewish and Christian customs it was important that this wine was not blessed for other gods (which would make it unclean). Kosher and sacramental wine was watched to be sure that it was properly handled and no idolatry was preformed with it<ref>[http://www.gemsinisrael.com/e_article000033155.htm What Makes a Wine Kosher?], ''Gems in Israel''</ref>. Some branches of Christianity believe that wine was transformed (and continues to be transformed) into the [[blood]] of [[Christ]] during [[communion]].

The [[Bible]] uses the Hebrew word "grape" to signify wine, making it unclear whether historical figures such as Jesus were drinking alcoholic wine or merely unfermented grape juice. However, most Biblical scholars conclude the latter, as the idea that Jesus would provide alcoholic beverages to a wedding party is not consistent with his character and moral standpoint; that is to say, Jesus was not known to [[sin]].<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3469/is_22_53/ai_87211760/</ref>

==Liquor==

Liquor is derived from fermented grains or other plants with a high starch content, that are then [[distillation|distilled]] to increase the alcohol content. Liquors such as [[rum]], [[tequila]] and [[vodka]] are derived from molasses, [[agave]] and grain or potatoes respectively. Some liquors are aged for years to improve flavor.

== Biblical References ==

The [[Bible]] speaks of consumption, or over-consumption, multiple times.

:According to Proverbs 31:6-7 the Bible recommends giving alcohol to those who are dying or [[Depression|depressed]], so that they can forget their misery, although in nearly all other places drinking is heavily discouraged.

It is written:

:''"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor [[Thievery|thieves]], nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of [[God]]"'' <ref>''1 Corinthians 6:9-10''</ref>

And similarly:

:''"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"'' <ref>''Galatians 5:19-21''</ref>

The Bible is not clear in these point whether Heaven would be closed to all who became drunk, or only those who drank regularly. However, further Biblical evidence points to the sinful nature of the demon drink:

:''"The Lord instructed Moses: '…When a man or woman makes a special vow, a Nazirite vow, to consecrate himself to the Lord, he is to abstain from wine and beer… He is not to eat anything produced by the grapevine, from seeds to skin, during his vow'"'' <ref>''Numbers 6:1-4''</ref>

:''"Daniel determined that he would not defile himself with the king’s food or with the wine he drank. So he asked permission from the chief official not to defile himself"'' <ref>''Daniel 1:8''</ref>

:''"But the angel said to him: Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. There will be joy and delight for you, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord and will never drink wine or beer. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb" <ref>''Luke 1:13-15''</ref>

Noah, singled out by God as a just man ("But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Genesis 6: 8-9) still indulged in strong drink.

:''"And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent." <ref>''Genesis 9:20-21''</ref>

Most biblical scholars agree that occasional wine is not spiritually harmful, but drunkenness, and certainly regular drunkenness, constitutes [[sin]]; as it takes you out of your normal state of mind and alters your [[will]] and ability to make good decisions. Not to mention the potentially serious physical ramifications of alcoholism which include liver disease as well as an increased risk of heart disease (but not when consumed in moderation).

Jesus himself was not opposed to the consumption of wine- one of the first miracles recorded in the [[Gospel of John]] has him turn water into wine at a wedding feast (John 2). It can be assumed that the guests had already been drinking immoderately, since they had consumed all the alcohol available to them. Matthew 11:19 also refers to Jesus being called a 'glutton and a drunkard', possibly unfairly. Some biblical scholars argue that the alcohol content of wine in that day was negligible compared to the wine of today.<ref>http://www.streetdirectory.com/restaurants/articles/67/wine/the_wine_of_israel_and_wine_in_biblical_times.html</ref>

In 1 Timothy 5:23 Paul counsels:

:''"Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities."

== Alcohol and Mormons ==
Members of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] (Mormons) follow a law of health known as the [[Word of Wisdom]] which includes abstaining from alcoholic drinks.

== Alcohol and Islam ==

Islam is less ambiguous regarding its intolerance for alcohol, as evidenced by the following verse:

"O you who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork. Leave it aside in order that ye may succeed." (Koran 5(Al Ma'idah): 90).

Consumption of alcohol is banned in several countries including Iran and Saudi Arabia, in similar fashion to [[dry county|"dry" counties]] in the United States. However, penalties for infractions are more stringent and in conformity with conservative moral standards in Islamic states. <ref>[http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/alcohol/alcohol_law.shtml Alcohol: Legal Status]</ref> <ref>[http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=32856 Alcohol consumption in Saudi Arabia]</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Prohibition]]
* [[Alcohol abuse]]
* [[Beer]]
* [[Taverns]]
* [[Wine]]
==Further reading==
* Downard, William L. ''Dictionary of the History of the American Brewing and Distilling Industries.'' (1980). 268 pp.
* McGovern, Patrick E. ''Uncorking the Past: The Quest for Wine, Beer, and Other Alcoholic Beverages'' (2009)

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Alcoholic Beverages]]

Adam Sandler

2010-01-14T04:28:15Z

NVConservative: Add valuable information on Sandler's hypocritical RINO standpoints

'''Adam Sandler''' is a [[Jew]]ish actor and singer-songwriter famous for his [[comedy|comic]] [[film|movie]] roles and songs. Prior to his rise to stardom, he was a regular on [[Saturday Night Live]]. One of his most famous songs is the Chanukah Song.

Adam Sandler is a registered [[Republican]]. In 2007 he donated $2100 to [[Rudy Giuliani]]'s presidential campaign. <ref>http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Adam_Sandler.php</ref>

Unfortunately, Sandler has championed liberal causes such as [[gay marriage]]<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-09-28-sandler_N.htm</ref> and has publicly stated that he did not dislike kissing [[Kevin James]] in the film [[I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry]].<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2007-09-28-sandler_N.htm</ref>

Further, the majority of films that Sandler has co-written celebrate liberal themes such as [[alcohol]]ism and premarital sex, and are targeted at [[liberal]] college students. Popular bookseller [[Amazon]] describes his films [[Billy Madison]] and [[Happy Gilmore]] as ranking among the "Best Movies for Lazy, Beer Drinking College Students."<ref>http://www.amazon.com/Best-Movies-Drinking-College-Students/lm/B7LEQU4I4B34</ref>

Christian press critics have described Sandler film [[The Longest Yard]] as containing "some 150 obscenities, countless sexual references (mostly homosexual) and two pornographic videos (one heterosexual, one homosexual)... it's obviously a sex comedy—and mostly a gay sex comedy" and as "the most foul, violent and perverted PG-13 film... ever."<ref>http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2005/juneweb-only/050602.html</ref> Further, in his recent film [[You Don't Mess With the Zohan]], Sandler depicts Israelis and Palestinians as "the same."<ref>http://www.cinematical.com/2008/06/03/fan-rant-adam-sandler-republican-actor/</ref>

For these reasons, Sandler has been widely accused of being a [[RINO]].

==Filmography==
*I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007)
*[[Reign Over Me]] (2007)
*[[Click]] (2006)
*The Longest Yard (2005)
*[[Spanglish]] (2004)
*[[50 First Dates]] (2004)
*[[Anger Management]] (2003)
*[[Mr. Deeds]] (2002)
*Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
*The Animal (2001)
*Little Nicky (2000)
*[[Big Daddy]] (1999)
*[[The Waterboy]] (1998)
*The Wedding Singer (1998)
*Bulletproof (1996)
*[[Happy Gilmore]] (1996)
*Billy Madison (1995)
*Mixed Nuts (1994)
*Airheads (1994)
*Coneheads (1993)
*Shakes the Clown (1991)
*Going Overboard (1989)

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Sandler, Adam}}
[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Comedians]]

Alcoholic drink

2007-03-14T08:25:43Z

NVConservative: Link to Heaven

Alcoholic drinks are beverages which contain ethanol (CH3CH2OH). Ethanol is an addictive psychoactive depressant. Alcohol has been found in society for thousands of years and in some cases was used in a medicinal capacity. According to Proverbs 31:6-7 the Bible recommends giving alcohol to those who are dying or depressed, so that they can forget their misery, although in nearly all other places drinking is heavily discouraged.

Alcohol, like [[marijuana]] and [[nicotine]], are considered to be [[gateway drugs]], and some users later turn to even more dangerous drugs such as [[cocaine]], [[methamphetamine]], and [[heroin]]. The [[Bible]] very specifically prohibits consumption, or perhaps over-consumption, of such drinks. Although most people ignore the warnings to their considerable peril.

It is written:

''"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God"'' (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

And similarly:

''"Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance—as I told you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God"'' (Galatians 5:19-21).

The bible is not clear in these point whether Heaven would be closed to all who became drunk, or only those who drank regularly. However, further Biblical evidence points to the sinful nature of the demon drink:

''"The Lord instructed Moses: '…When a man or woman makes a special vow, a Nazirite vow, to consecrate himself to the Lord, he is to abstain from wine and beer… He is not to eat anything produced by the grapevine, from seeds to skin, during his vow'"'' (Numbers 6:1-4)

''"Daniel determined that he would not defile himself with the king’s food or with the wine he drank. So he asked permission from the chief official not to defile himself"'' (Daniel 1:8)

''"But the angel said to him: Do not be afraid, Zechariah, because your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will name him John. There will be joy and delight for you, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord and will never drink wine or beer. He will be filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother’s womb" (Luke 1:13-15)''

Most scholars agree that occasional wine is not spiritually harmful, but drunkeness, and certainly regular drunkeness, will prevent you from entering [[Heaven]].

No Child Left Behind

2007-03-14T08:23:02Z

NVConservative: Revert user who is blatantly breaking the Conservapedia Commandments

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2001 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

The law has been shown to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student.

User talk:Realitycheck

2007-03-14T08:22:29Z

NVConservative: Spelling

I am going to lift your block for obscenity, but will be required to reinstate it if you post any more inappropriate material. Please read our [[The_Conservapedia_Commandments|rules]]: this is a clean site. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:59, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I have replied on your user page. I consider your block to be offensive, as there was as far as I could tell nothing at all wrong with my article additions. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 01:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Using British/Australian spellings==

Your changing of the American "standardized" spelling to the British/Australian "standardised" is explicitly forbidden under the Conservapedia Commandments, and will result in a block if you continue to make that edit. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 04:22, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

San Francisco

2007-03-14T08:20:40Z

NVConservative: Restore factual information but preserve landmark information

'''San Francisco''' is a [[liberal]] city in [[California]]. It has a higher proportion of [[homosexual]]s than any other city in the [[United States]], and in 2004, its mayor, [[Gavin Newsom]], attempted to perform [[same-sex marriage]]s despite the practice being explicitly illegal under California law. Not surprisingly, the marriages were nullified by the courts shortly thereafter.

Famous San Francisco landmarks include the [[Golden Gate Bridge]] and [[Alcatraz Island]].

No Child Left Behind

2007-03-14T08:18:56Z

NVConservative: Revert. Remember: Reverting to the British spelling is against the Conservapedia Commandments

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-14T08:17:32Z

NVConservative: Fix timeframe

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world, started when [[United States|U.S.]] president [[George W Bush]] launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], finding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] and liberating the Iraqi people. The conflict is a central front in the [[global war on terror]].

By May 1, 2003 A.D., the [[United States]] had succeeded at the first goal and later had Hussein executed; the second goal was rendered irrelevant, and the third goal was largely successful (as the Iraqi people are now free of Hussein.) President Bush celebrated this victory by declaring "Mission Accomplished" on the [[battleship]] U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

Despite the relative success of the war, there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region.

Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that fewer than 65,000 Iraqis have died<ref>[http://www.iraqbodycount.org/], ''[[iraqbodycount.org]]''</ref> as a result of the war, although many Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]].

==References==
<references/>

Operation Iraqi Freedom

2007-03-14T08:17:03Z

NVConservative: Fix page

'''2003 Iraq War''' (3/20/2003-) is presently the largest war operation in the world, started when [[United States|U.S.]] president [[George W Bush]] launched a combat operation against [[Iraq]], with the stated goal of deposing dictator [[Saddam Hussein]], finding [[Weapons of Mass Destruction]] and liberating the Iraqi people. The conflict is a central front in the [[global war on terror]].

By May 1, 2003 A.D., the [[United States]] had succeeded at the first goal and had Hussein executed; the second goal was rendered irrelevant, and the third goal was largely successful (as the Iraqi people are now free of Hussein.) President Bush celebrated this victory by declaring "Mission Accomplished" on the [[battleship]] U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

Despite the relative success of the war, there exists a large debate over topics such as withdrawal of American forces and the role of nations in the region.

Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that fewer than 65,000 Iraqis have died<ref>[http://www.iraqbodycount.org/], ''[[iraqbodycount.org]]''</ref> as a result of the war, although many Iraqi civilians have fled to neighboring [[Jordan]] and [[Syria]].

==References==
<references/>

No Child Left Behind

2007-03-14T08:12:28Z

NVConservative: Revert: the "z" spelling is in wider use in the United States

Terrorism

2007-03-14T08:10:38Z

NVConservative: The IRA and KKK are former terrorist organizations only; add current ones

{{stub}}

'''Terrorism''' is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal.

== Well-Known Terrorist Groups ==

* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Hamas]]
* [[Abu Sayyaf]]
* [[Ansar Al-Islam]]
* [[Hezbollah]]
* [[Palestinian Islamic Jihad]]
* [[Tamil Tigers]]
* [[Nicaraguan Contras]]

No Child Left Behind

2007-03-14T07:59:50Z

NVConservative: Fix year

No Child Left Behind

2007-03-14T07:59:29Z

NVConservative: Introduce No Child Left Behind page

'''No Child Left Behind''' is a 2004 law signed by President [[George W. Bush]] that holds public schools accountable for their students' test scores.

Under the law, a school whose students consistently fail [[standardized tests]] will be subject to disciplinary action, including giving [[vouchers]] to the students to study at more efficient [[private school]]s, or even firing the administration and teachers of the school and having the state government assume control.

The law has been shown to be effective in ensuring that underprivileged youth receive the same standard of education as every other student.

Edward M. Kennedy

2007-03-14T07:56:48Z

NVConservative:

Edward Moore ("Ted" or "Teddy") Kennedy (b. 1932) is the second longest-serving U.S. Senator, a Democrat from Massachusetts. His family has nearly controlled the Democratic Party for almost 50 years, beginning with his older brothers President [[John F. Kennedy]] (assassinated in 1963) and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] (assassinated in 1968). Ted Kennedy was long assumed to become the Democratic nominee for president himself, but the [[Chappaquiddick]] scandal in 1969 caused him to delay his candidacy until 1980, when he was unable to overcome the power of incumbency enjoyed by Democratic President [[Jimmy Carter]].

Ted Kennedy has always represented the most [[liberal]] side of the Democratic Party, from support for taxpayer-funded abortion to same-sex marriage. He is unbeatable in his home state of Massachusetts, but the crafty Senator [[Robert Byrd]] did defeat him for a leadership position (Majority Whip) in the Senate in 1971 and Kennedy was never able to become Majority Leader. Nevertheless, his political power behind the scenes is undisputed, and he played a key role in the crafting the language in the [[No Child Left Behind]] of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), a massive [[education]] bill signed into law by Republican President [[George W. Bush]].

He is currently Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, where the first bill he pushed through was an increase in the minimum wage by $2.10, to $7.25.

Massachusetts

2007-03-14T07:53:40Z

NVConservative: Restore factual information

'''Massachusetts''' is a state in the [[United States]] known for [[liberal]] politics, to the point that the term [[Massachusetts Liberal]] is in regular use by the media. Its senators are two of the most liberal men in the Senate: [[John Kerry]] (who unsuccessfully ran for [[President]] in 2004) and [[Ted Kennedy]]. Massachussetts is infamous for its legalization of [[same-sex marriage]].

Massachusetts liberal

2007-03-14T07:52:13Z

NVConservative: Link the state

A [[Liberal]] from [[Massachusetts]], in many ways the most liberal state in the United States. It is the only state where it is a crime, with a mandatory prison sentence of at least one year, for transporting a lawfully owned gun for a lawful purpose in an automobile without a special permit. Out-of-state drivers traveling to hunting or gun competitions in the Northeast have to choose between going hours out of their way to avoid Massachusetts, or spending hours attempting to obtain a permit.

Massachusetts is also the only state that has same-sex marriage. Two of the most liberal senators in the entire [[U.S. Senate]], [[Teddy Kennedy]] and [[John Kerry]], represent Massachusetts. {{fact}}

[[John Kerry]] lost by millions of votes nationwide in the 2004 election against [[George W. Bush]], yet Kerry won Massachusetts by a margin of about 62-38%.{{fact}}

[[Category:Politics]]

United States Senate

2007-03-14T07:50:35Z

NVConservative: Add information on U.S. Senate

A '''Senate''' is a governing body of a legislature.

==United States Senate==

The [[United States]] has a senate composed of 100 members, 50 from each [[state]]. The Senate convenes in [[Washington, D.C.]]. The Senate is equally divided, with 49 [[Republican]]s and 49 [[Democrat]]s. However, both [[Independent]]s, [[Joe Lieberman]] and [[Bernie Sanders]], are more [[liberal]] than the average Senator, so some consider the [[Democrat]]s to have a slight 51-49 advantage.

==Roman Senate==

The first senate was that of the [[Roman Republic]]. The senate was the dominant force in the politics of the Roman Republic. The Roman Senate consisted of 300 senators who met in the [[Curia]] or Senate house.

The senate of the [[Roman Empire]] was similar to the senate of the Roman Republic. The senate continued to meet in the Curia, but the number of senators was increased to over a thousand by [[Julius Caesar]]. During this time the senate was essentially a figurehead subject to the orders of the emperor.

==Notes and References==

<references/>

Gun control

2007-03-14T07:45:49Z

NVConservative: link to God

'''Gun control''' refers to all laws enacted at the federal, state, and local level with the intent of placing restrictions on the right of individual private citizens to keep and bear [[firearms]]. This right is a [[natural right]] which we are endowed by our [[God|Creator]] with, and the [[Second Amendment]] to the [[United States Constitution]] explicitly recognizes this pre-existing natural right of individuals to own and carry tools useful for self-defense.

"Gun control" is the use of legislation to place restrictions on this right. This can include:
* Restricting which persons can own firearms and denying some persons this right
* Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may own, or purchase during a given time period
* Requirements that privately owned firearms be registered with the government. This has led to gun confiscation in countries where it has been enacted.
* Bans on certain types of firearms; for example, handguns or so-called "assault" rifles
* Restrictions on where firearms may be carried, for example into restaurants or post offices
* Requiring a "background check" and/or a "waiting period" to purchase a firearm
* Restricting when and where firearms may be bought and sold, for example banning their sale through the mail
* Requiring licenses or some other form of permission from the government to buy and/or sell a firearm
* Requiring some form of permission from the government to carry a firearm in public, either concealed or openly
* Laws granting special gun rights for some people, for example retired law enforcement officers, which are denied the rest of the public
* Outright bans on carrying firearms in public
* Outright bans on private possession of firearms

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

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

After decades of increasing infringement on Second Amendment rights, the current trend is finally in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain rifles labeled "assault" rifles solely because of features of their appearance. This law recenly expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, a municipal ban on private handgun ownership in [[Washington, D.C.]] was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.

Atheism

2007-03-14T07:39:20Z

NVConservative: Revert to version by ColinR

Atheism is disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a [[God|god]] or gods, or any supernatural entity.

Some Atheists are tied with [[Secular Humanism]]. Popularly-known Atheists include [[Stephen Hawking]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Carl Sagan]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Many atheists base their [[moral code]] upon [[emotion]], [[experience]] and empirically derived ethics, such as those promoted by secular humanism. Atheists hold that neither the [[Bible]], nor the [[Koran]], nor the [[Torah]], nor any religious text can be our only source of morality. This claim is made as all religious texts contain, and often ascribe to God, extremely immoral acts such as the Israelites driving out heathen nations from Canaan (i.e. [[ethnic cleansing]]), the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers to death, and the institution of slavery.

Atheists often subscribe to the secular humanist idea that it is far more ethical to do what is right because you believe that it is right, rather than because you fear divine punishment or desire divine reward. One example is illustrated in the following quote from [[Albert Einstein]]:

:“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death”.

A modern example is the absurdity with which we view Islamic suicide bombers acting on a desire for 72 virgins in the afterlife. Atheism condemns this desire, along with other religious desires for exclusive reward (and the punishment of others) such as are found in all religious texts.

== Origins ==

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BCE. The materialist world view was essentially mathematical and had no room for gods{{fact}}.

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

== The Problem of Evil==

A central argument against religious belief in all powerful entities ('gods') is the problem of evil. First identified by the philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BCE), this problem points out the difficulty created by the mere existence of evil:

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

A number of responses to this logical paradox have been put forth including those which assert human ignorance as the culprit, the concept of free will and the specific writings in some faiths which discuss the co-existence of good and evil (such as the book of Job in the Christian and Jewish faiths).[http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/evil-log.htm]

== Atheism and Agnosticism ==

Atheism and agnosticism are logically distinct concepts. Whilst atheist reject the existence of a god or gods, agnostics do not do so. [[Richard Dawkins]] has contrasted the two positions as follows:

:“There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can’t prove that there aren’t any, so shouldn’t we be agnostic with respect to fairies?”.

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]

Omniscience

2007-03-14T07:36:32Z

NVConservative: Page on omniscience

'''Omniscience''' is [[God]]'s ability to know everything there is to know.

Some have questioned whether omniscience is compatibile with [[free will]]; specifically, [[Calvinist]]s have argued that God knows whether a person will be saved before he is born.

However, knowing what the outcome of a man's free will will be does not mean that he does not have free will. It is possible for God to know how a man will exercise his free will and at the same time not interfere with it.

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-14T07:32:43Z

NVConservative: /* "Science" is irrelevant. */ Axiomatic

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Prove it. --[[User:Realitycheck|Realitycheck]] 03:28, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::What, mathematically? It's axiomatic. There. Proven. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:32, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

France

2007-03-14T07:31:40Z

NVConservative: /* Politics */ fix link

{{stub}}

France is a country in Western Europe, about 3,500 miles from the [[United States]]. At its hight it rivaled the English Empire with colonies in every corner of the world. It continued to be a strong presence in Acadamia and has been the birthplace of countless reknowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], and is consistently at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its reknown for a center of learning and philosophy.

[[Image:map_of_france.jpg]]

It was a founder member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which was lead to the EEC and EU. Its contributions to western culture have been immense if contraversial. It greatly assisted the colonies via military and financing to gain their independence from England, established universal legal codes in much of the non anglo saxon west. It made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and post modernism. Its own colonial behaviour and the treatment of non French soldiers has been criticised of late. It maintains the CFA (African France) in much of west and central Africa. It gifted the statue of liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoeing the French aid given to the colonies during their revolutionary war.

==Politics==

In March of 2003 A.D., France opposed President [[George W. Bush]] and the [[Iraq War]], prompting heavy backlash and criticism from the American people, and causing them to question whether France's status as a U.S. ally had been permanently undermined.

[[Category:Countries]]

France

2007-03-14T07:30:38Z

NVConservative: Context and politics

{{stub}}

France is a country in Western Europe, about 3,500 miles from the [[United States]]. At its hight it rivaled the English Empire with colonies in every corner of the world. It continued to be a strong presence in Acadamia and has been the birthplace of countless reknowned scholars. It remains a powerhouse in the [[European Union]], and is consistently at odds with the [[United Kingdom]] on issues of EU policy. The capital city is Paris, often called the "City of Lights" due to its reknown for a center of learning and philosophy.

[[Image:map_of_france.jpg]]

It was a founder member of the European Coal and Steel treaty which was lead to the EEC and EU. Its contributions to western culture have been immense if contraversial. It greatly assisted the colonies via military and financing to gain their independence from England, established universal legal codes in much of the non anglo saxon west. It made a number of philosophical contributions to the world, including Descartes and Sartre, existentialism and post modernism. Its own colonial behaviour and the treatment of non French soldiers has been criticised of late. It maintains the CFA (African France) in much of west and central Africa. It gifted the statue of liberty to the USA in celebration of its independence, echoeing the French aid given to the colonies during their revolutionary war.

==Politics==

In March of 2003 A.D., France opposed President [[George W. Bush]] and the [[Iraq war]], prompting heavy backlash and criticism from the American people, and causing them to question whether France's status as a U.S. ally had been permanently undermined.

[[Category:Countries]]

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-14T07:26:31Z

NVConservative: /* "Science" is irrelevant. */ Reply

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

Yes. Our schools should only be teaching the absolute truth. The only truth that has stood the test of time is God's own word, as revealed in the Bible. Evolution is only a theory, and should be taught as such.

Yes, but it should not be taught as an alternative. Evolution should be taken away altogether. It's bad enough that there isn't prayer in school - Now our young American students go to school every day to learn according to the secular progressive agenda! --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 01:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==='''Misconceptions'''===

Your statement of "Evolution is only a theory" is a testament to the views of what exactly a "scientific theory" truly is. A scientific theory is, in short, as close to proven as one can possibly get within the realm of science. For instance, Gravity is only a Theory in science. Infact, there is far more evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution than any Theory of Gravity(As stated before-Theory must make valid, repeatable, and consistent predictions, and Gravity gets tricky at times). What do I mean by this? Theories are based on varifiable, testable, and repeatable experiments, with consistent, reliable, and predictable results. The Theory of Evolution,infact, falls under all of these criteria. In basic terms, this is the ACTUAL Theory of Evolution(Not what you may be told it is, or what people may believe it to be, but what it actually states, in layman's terms):

Individuals within a population whose traits are more desirable for a certain environment have a higher chance of reproduction than those without that trait, and thus there is a higher degree of probability that trait will be passed on.

That is a basic summary of what the Theory of Evolution states(There is more to it, really, however that is the very basic sense). And all tests have proven that Evolution is indeed a valid theory. We then move on to use the Theory of Evolution, along with fossil records, strata, and the biological processes to construct a possible path of evolution(Which, incidentally, is not the Theory of Evolution-just a model based upon it).

And the problem with you saying that the Bible has withstood the test of time is that it hasn't. There have been many changes to the bible over the past few thousand years, mistranlations, omitions, interpretations added, removed, etc and so forth. The same general idea is still there-however the Bible today is very different than that of 2000 years ago, as are people's views and beliefs concerning it.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply:''' Simple question. How do you know the Bible is the Truth?
:Because it's the only revealed truth mankind has ever received. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 03:26, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

=== Science is neutral toward Creationism. ===

The problem with this entire debate is that it does not recognize the fact: science is neutral toward religion and religious ideas such as creationism. Science cares ''only'' about '''testable''' explanations of natural phenomena. It does ''not'' care about '''untestable''' explanations based on religion. Its important to understand the difference between neutrality and antagonism. Science (including evolution) is not antagonistic toward religion (or creationism). Some scientists may be, but science is not.

The science classroom is a place where science is taught. It is not a place for philosophical debate. It is a place to learn, through numerous case studies, how the scientific method has been applied through history to explain our world. By learning evolution (one example of science), children learn how Darwin proposed a self-consistent explanation for how new species can be formed. They ''also'' learn how such a theory could be disproved and how it can be tested. Any child who wants to disprove evolution is immediately provided the tools with which to perform the task. They just have to go out and experiment.

Creationism is not science. It depends on the unquestionable, untestable nature of holy doctrine. That does not invalidate it, but it does bar it from being taught in a science class. It cannot be disproved, but it also falls short of another facet of scientific theories: predictability. Science makes predictions. Creationism does not.

It is not wrong to ask that evolution be taught ''better'' than it is, today. But it is wrong to ask that a non-scientific idea be taught next to it, as though the two were equal. Provide a means for a science student to step out of the classroom and ''test'' creationism, an experiment that could possibly disprove it, and a set of ''predictions'' about our natural world that it makes, and then it would be science.

Israel

2007-03-14T07:25:37Z

NVConservative: Revert back to version by GOPTortoise

Israel is a nation located in the [[Middle East]]. It originally started when the [[Hebrews]] migrated from [[Egypt]] out of slavery. It is the location of [[Jesus]]' birth and many other major [[Bible|Bibli]]cal events.

Israel was a powerful nation in the Middle East from about 1000 to 900 B.C.

It was conquered by the Romans in 200 B.C. In 1948, it once again became a sovereign nation.

Today Israel is the location of intense territorial disputes between [[Israeli]]s and [[Palestinians]]. Although Israel has made repeated concessions to the [[Muslim]] Palestinians, the Palestinians continue to employ [[terrorist]] tactics, especially [[suicide bombing]], against Israel.

[[Category:Countries]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Bible]]

San Francisco

2007-03-14T07:24:30Z

NVConservative: Restore factual information about San Francisco

Mexico (country)

2007-03-14T07:22:28Z

NVConservative: Restore factual information

{{stub}}
'''Mexico''' is a country in [[North America]], directly south of the [[United States]]. Mexico is noted for its poor economy, which makes it the main contributor of [[illegal immigration]] to the [[United States]]. Further, Mexico is the source of most [[illegal drug]]s used in the United States.

The dominant Religion of Mexico is [[Roman Catholic]]ism.<ref>https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html#People</ref>

<references/>

[[Category:Countries]]

God

2007-03-12T20:25:34Z

NVConservative: Revert to truthful version of the page that does not imply God is fictional.

'''God''' is the creator of the universe. Christianity has understood since about the fourth century that He is a trinity comprised of the [[Father]], the [[Jesus Christ|Son]], and the [[Holy Spirit]]. His [[creation]] of man is described in the [[Book of Genesis]] in the [[Bible]]. Belief in God (specifically, belief in [[Jesus Christ]] as your personal lord and savior) is a necessary condition to go to [[heaven]] (rather than [[hell]]) in the afterlife.

It is claimed that [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], and [[Judaism]] worship the same God in different ways. This claim is regarded by some as a way to convert Jews and Christians to Islam, since it supports the idea that Abrahamic religion has "grown" from Judaism to Christianity to Islam.<ref>http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm</ref> However, many are skeptical of this idea.<ref>http://www.letusreason.org/Islam6.htm</ref>
Common powers attributed to God include [[omnipotence]] (the ability to do anything), [[omniscience]] (the ability to know anything), and [[omnipresence]] (the ability to be everywhere at once) although even that level of detail is not common throughout all monotheists{{Fact|date=March2007}}. Many believers in God also believe that he eternally punishes the wicked in [[hell]] and eternally rewards the righteous in [[heaven]] and variants of this theme are found in all the Abrahamic faiths. While He is said to be unique, the Old Testament in fact mentions 'other gods' constantly.

==References==
<references/>

==Sources==

* Cruden, A., ''Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testaments'' (Lutterworth, 1930)
* ''The Holy Bible'' (King James Version)
* ''The New English Bible'' (Oxford & Cambridge University Presses, 1970)
* ''The New Jerusalem Bible'' (Darton, Longman & Todd, 1990)
* Peake, A.S., ''Commentary on the Bible'' (Nelson, 1962)
* Young, R., ''Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible'' (Lutterworth, 1939)

[[Category:Religion]]

Wikipedia

2007-03-12T20:24:49Z

NVConservative: Expand see also section

'''Wikipedia''' is a free content online [[encyclopedia]] established on January 15, 2001. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Bias==
Conservapedia has an article detailing the [[liberal]] bias of Wikipedia. 
For more details, see: [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

==References==
<references />

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]

Sam Brownback

2007-03-12T20:21:11Z

NVConservative: link illegal immigration

{{stub}}
'''Sam Brownback''' (born 1956) is a Republican Senator from Kansas who is running for president and touting himself as the most socially conservative candidate available. Brownback is most well known for his pro-life views and his work on human rights issues.

Senator Brownback has come under fire for supporting the Kennedy-McCain proposal on [[illegal immigration]].
[[Category:Biographies]]

Illegal drug

2007-03-12T20:18:40Z

NVConservative: It's a cite from whitehousedrugpolicy.gov! Why on earth would you think it was inaccurate?

An '''illegal drug''' is a recreational drug that has been deemed potentially harmful and therefore made illegal by a Government of a country.

==Drugs in America==

Illegal drugs in America include [[marijuana]], [[cocaine]], [[methamphetamine]], and [[heroin]].

[[Ronald Reagan]] declared a "war on (illegal) drugs" in [[1988]] with the creation of a [[drug czar]].

==Notes==

Legalization of illegal drugs, especially [[marijuana]], is a [[liberal]] political position. The 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that a disproportionate percentage of illegal drug users were minorities. The highest rate was among American Indian/Alaska Natives, followed by persons reporting two or more races, followed by blacks/African Americans.<ref>[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/minorities/index.html]</ref>

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-12T20:18:01Z

NVConservative: /* '''Post Your Thoughts''' */ Science is irrelevant.

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

: '''REPLY'''
The problem with teaching creationism in a science class is that it is not science.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006).

Scientific theories are 1) falsifiable. 2) based on natural, not-supernatural, phenomena. 3) based on observation or experiment. Creationism doesn't fit these criteria and therefore is not science. You can't proove God exists - there is no material evidence. Creationism is not falsifiable. If your only evidence is biblical passage, then it can't be falsified - there is, again, no physical evidence to back up the premise that the bible is inerrant.

A scientific theory can never be proven right. It can only be proven wrong. That applies to gravitational theory, thermodynamics, both theories of relativity, atomic theory, quantum theory, and the theory of evolution. Come up with a better theory based on the same evidence than any one of these, and I guarantee they will be thrown out. Not so with creationism.

There are so many problems with creationism as science even if you were to accept it as a viable theory (that it could be falsified and that its based on observation or experiment), it has too many obvious problems to not break under its own inconsistencies. For the Creation theory itself, tell me how the Grand Canyon was created quickly, even though we see similar flood events fail to make even a small ravine? Or the firmament that early Hebrews believed in and is mentioned in Genesis. What happened to to it? And why are there two different creation stories? One says the animals and plants were created first. The other says man was created first. Explain the fossil record, and why so many fossils no longer exist. Not enough room on the Ark? The Great Flood killed them? Okay, explain fossil strata given the "Great Flood". Why do you never find trilobites in the same strata as dinosaurs? Why don't you find humans with dinosaurs, for that matter? You would think a great flood would wash everything together given what we know of the way smaller floods work. The Tower of Babel is a quaint story, but explain the similarities of some languages, and the disparities of others? Wouldn't you expect them, based on the story, to be completely different? Afterall, I understand French, Spanish, Italian, and German passably, but I can't understand any east Asian or African language - they aren't even structured the same. According to the story, everyone should be completely confused and the languages should be different.

Biblical creationism is not scientific. It is an excellent example of a logical fallacy called "begging the question". It requires one to take the Bible as infallible, and this premise is not falsifiable. End of story.

Intelligent design is not science either and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief. I'll admit it's more plausible than creationism, but it still has the same problem with its premise - that, and there's no way to test it or proove it wrong.

God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's ridiculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer. The fact that it can be proven wrong, is based on observable evidence, and is based in the material or physical world is what makes it a scientific theory.

So go ahead. Using the same evidence in front of you, devise and alternate theory of how life came to be what it is. Submit it to a peer reviewed journal, get it published, and maybe it will end up in science standards.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. However it should not be allowed to impede on the relatively small time alotted for true scientific concepts like Evolution.

===Taught, perhaps, but not as science===
Creationism/ID is demonstrably not scientific. It does not follow the scientific method, as it is not falsifiable or testable. If one wishes to teach it as a ''philosophy'', some type of thought-experiment, I suppose that would work so long as no specific religion is proselytized. Even then, I think there are probably bigger and better subjects for a philosophy class, such as theories of religion in general, why people may believe it, and so on. Christianity, like every other world religion, will eventually fade when people figure out that the lightning is caused by static electricity and not angry gods. [[User:Thatguy|Thatguy]] 22:19, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Your reasoning is cyclical. Science classes require a belief that the scientific method is infallible. If ID/Creationism can't be taught, there is no reason to teach science altogether because science requires the same type of faith to follow it blindly. And biology textbooks written by evolutionists are definitely not the word of God. [[User:Smurge|Smurge]] 11:13, 12 March 2007 (EST)

:REPLY - The scientific method certainly is not used to find infallible answers. It is used to find probable solutions. The solutions obtained through the scientific method are obtained by observing physical evidence and positing why that evidence is the way it is. It then tests that hypothesis for validity. Creationism cannot be considered science, therefore, because, though it may be plausible, it is not at all observable or disprovable.
:Also, biology textbooks are certainly not the word of God, but what is? The Bible? How do you know? Why do parts of the New Testament contradict part of the Old Testament? Was the word of God wrong the first time around? [[User:FPiaco|Fpiaco]] 16:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

=== "Science" is irrelevant. ===

"Science" is a human method of determining truth. The Bible is a Divine method of revealing truth. Thus, where science and the Bible conflict, it is because science is flawed.

Creationism should be taught in schools because it is the Truth. Children should not be learning "theories" that are obviously falsifiable since all one needs to do is compare them with Biblical truth. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia

2007-03-12T20:15:32Z

NVConservative: See also section

'''Wikipedia''' is a free content online [[encyclopedia]] established on [[January 15]], [[2001]]. It currently has over 6 million articles, written in 250 languages<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia]</ref> on various topics. Like [[Conservapedia]], it is a [[wiki]] that is written and edited by its users. Anyone can add to or edit the content on Wikipedia.

==Controversy==

Wikipedia acceps the BCE/CE dating convention, rather than the B.C./A.D. convention, to keep with its policy of remaining a neutral web source. This has been taken to be a denial of the divinity of [[Jesus Christ]] by many Christian groups{{fact}}. Further, Wikipedia shows bias in accepting non-American spellings, despite the fact that the majority of English speakers are American{{fact}}.

==See also==

[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]

Talk:Marijuana

2007-03-12T20:12:32Z

NVConservative: Response

Is this entry a joke? "Favored by many liberals, especially hippies"? Yes, I can guess I can envision some liberals liking marijuana, but that doesn't mean that they all, or even most of them favor it conclusively. And do hippies really even exist anymore? It seems to be an antiquated/obsolete/broad term. And I seem to recall our President having used marijuana and cocaine. Hrm. Essentially, this entry strikes me as a hilarious joke. --[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 18:17, 10 March 2007 (EST)
:Where are the citations for this article? Marijauna was not illegal until the Roosevelt administration. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]] 13:46, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Where to start? Firstly Marijuana, or more correctly, Cannabis, is a Schedule I drug in the United States because all Tetrahydrocannabinols aside from synthetic THC are Schedule I. Many conservatives and liberals alike favor the legalization of Cannibis, and I agree with Cracker about the term hippie being rather antiquated. The effects of Cannabis can include the effects listed, along with others. It is no longer considered a gateway drug by the majority of researchers, this label is primarily only used by those opposed to its legalization. It's medicinal use is still hotly debated, but I think that the current information on its use in medicine is rather limited and should be expanded. Lastly, why does in matter if Clinton smoked marijuana? This seems to be gossip at most. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It is well-known and well-sourced that legalization of Marijuana is a political position favored almost exclusively by liberals. Hmm, do you think perhaps they want to legalize it because they smoke it? --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Illegal drug

2007-03-12T20:10:11Z

NVConservative: Here's another government source that proves that minorities use drugs

Talk:Illegal drug

2007-03-12T20:06:13Z

NVConservative: Reply to Murray

It's not true that most drug users are ethnic minorities. You don't seem to have read the source that you actually cited. See [http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/minorities03.pdf], page 29. On page 28, the report notes that these data challenge the unsupported belief that minorities are disproportionately likely to use.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:That's not what the article says. It says a disproportionate number of drug users are ethnic minorities. For example, if 20% of whites use drugs and 30% of blacks use drugs, then more whites use drugs than blacks, but a disproportionate number of blacks use drugs. That (with different numbers) is similar to the situation. --[[User:NVConservative|NVConservative]] 16:06, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Illegal drug

2007-03-12T20:02:46Z

NVConservative: Here's a source from the Government. Happy?

An '''illegal drug''' is a recreational drug that has been deemed potentially harmful and therefore made illegal by a Government of a country.

==Drugs in America==

Illegal drugs in America include [[marijuana]], [[cocaine]], [[methamphetamine]], and [[heroin]].

[[Ronald Reagan]] declared a "war on (illegal) drugs" in [[1988]] with the creation of a [[drug czar]].

==Notes==

A disproportionate number of users of illegal drugs are minorities.<ref>[http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/minorities03.pdf]</ref> Legalization of illegal drugs, especially [[marijuana]], is a [[liberal]] political position.