Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:PhilipN

2012-02-10T01:39:31Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by Jpatt (talk) to last revision by DavidE

{{welcome|sig=--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:46, 17 November 2011 (EST)}}

==City template==
Definitely on the right track. Suggestions: add "province" (i.e for Canadian cities); change "mayor" to "current mayor"; add "charter" for date the city was first given a charter. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:20, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:Done ! There are many more info we could provide for a city but I think we should keep to the essential. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:29, 27 December 2011 (EST)

== Song titles VS album titles ==

Typically, following most style guides, song titles go "in quotation marks," album titles ''in italics.'' [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 16:46, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:Hi ScottDG, which articles are you referring to ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:47, 27 December 2011 (EST)
::[[Dire Straits]], for one. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 17:05, 27 December 2011 (EST)
:::It is true. I did not write this article, I just added the infobox but I will be careful about this now. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:10, 27 December 2011 (EST)

==Image requests==
A slight change from what you requested. I will look on Flickr for images released for free use via Creative Commons...so far I uploaded two for you. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:42, 28 December 2011 (EST)
::Thanks a lot, I will try to be more careful about which images I choose in the future. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:44, 28 December 2011 (EST)

== Congratulations ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted to blocking privileges, and also "rollback" privileges to make it easier to revert vandalism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:19, 29 December 2011 (EST)
:Thanks Andy, I will try to use it wisely. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 18:23, 29 December 2011 (EST)

== Letting you off the hook! ==

Hi, it's Bob Servant here. Your website is so sad and pathetic - we're not going to mention you in our new book. Sorry guys.

[[User:BobGS|BobGS]] 19:37, 1 January 2012 (EST)
:Hmmm. Philip, have a look at [http://bobservant.com/about.html this].--[[User:GFitz|GFitz]] 19:44, 1 January 2012 (EST)
::Great catch, good job blocking him, I had my suspicions but I let him a chance.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Alright. For that, I will refrain from vandalizing. The thing I am trying to achieve is the realization that until people decide to work together instead of warring, that nothing is truly going to be accomplished. However, this is a large goal, I admit. [[User:Mangoluv|Mangoluv]] 16:16, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:Good luck with that !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:18, 2 January 2012 (EST)

== Thank you ==

I made a mistake in the title for the entry Evergreen State College, and thank you for the correction! [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 17:38, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:You're welcome --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:40, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== vandal rash ==

Recentchanges is filled with vandals. Can we do a checkuser? --[[User:JonM|JonM]] 23:44, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:Hi Jon, I do not have access to the checkUser, you may want to check this list: [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3AListUsers&username=&group=checkuser&limit=50]. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:49, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== World Heritage Sites ==
: Fine, thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 09:40, 24 January 2012 (EST)

User:PhilipN

2012-02-09T20:47:33Z

PhilipN: Retiring from CP

{{userboxtop|Philip N.}}
{{Userbox|white|white|1800+|This user has made over 1800 edits to Conservapedia}}
{{Userbox|#DC143C|white|30|This user has blocked 30 vandals}}
{{User Vandalized|4}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{userboxbottom}}

'''''Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge''''' (2 Peter 1:5 [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Peter-1-5/]).

I am currently thinking about retirement from CP. 
Why ? 
Because I see in some senior admins a huge lack of qualities pretty important to me:
* [[Modesty]]: the simple article [[Conservapedia proven right]] is enough to prove the point
* [[Humility]]: Keeping to unreferenced belief while many contributors provide references that contradict the statement: (See [[Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?]])
* [[Honesty]]: by claiming to be Christian and supporting an unfaithful greedy man
* [[Objectivity]]: we do not live in a black & white world where you can pack what you don't like (Atheists, evolutionists, Muslims, Sweden, Stalin, Hitler, Socialists, Liberals...) on one hand and what you like (Conservative, Christians (but not from all churches), Jesus) on the other.
* [[Charity]]: 'Love the Sinner Hate the Sin'. I can't see no love here, only hatred and contempt for those who do not share your beliefs
* [[Affability]] but only in one senior admin (or maybe he is many ?)

If you are aware of another Conservative/Christian-friendly encyclopedia that respect those values, please let me know.

User:PhilipN

2012-02-09T05:38:39Z

PhilipN: Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge

{{userboxtop|Philip N.}}
{{Userbox|white|white|1500+|This user has made over 1500 edits to Conservapedia}}
{{Userbox|#DC143C|white|30|This user has blocked 30 vandals}}
{{User Vandalized|4}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User KnowsNoEvo}}
{{User GunControLovedByTotalitarians}}
{{userboxbottom}}

'''''Add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge''''' (2 Peter 1:5 [http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Peter-1-5/])

==About me==
My name is Philip. I am a married self-made businessman who started a small website agency.

==TODO List==
*<s>Improve my [[List of World treasures]]</s>
*Improve the [[World Heritage Site]]s
*Improve my [[User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists|Questions to evolutionists‎]]
*Create templates like the [[:Template:African Countries]] or the [[:Template:Asian Countries]]
*Improve my [[User:PhilipN/Portal:Religion|Religion page]]

==Conservapedia articles that should be deleted or classified as Essay==
''I believe those articles are personal essays rather than community articles.''
*[[Atheism and cowardice]]
*[[Atheism and obesity]]
*[[Western atheism and race]]
*[[Atheism and Debate]]
*[[Atheism and morality]]
*[[Atheism and Mass Murder]]
*[[Atheism and health]]
*[[Atheism and suicide]]
*[[Atheism and bestiality]]
*[[Muslim agenda of the Obama administration]]
*[[Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage]]
*[[Homosexual Agenda]]
*[[Atheist agenda]]
*[[Sexual immorality and Sweden]]
*[[Bestiality and Sweden]]

==My favorite topics==
While I try to keep an eye on any topics, my favorite topics are:
*[[Geography]] & [[Geopolitics]]
*[[Music]], and especially [[Rock]]

I like lists and created a few:
*[[List of countries by population]]
*[[List of countries by area]]
*[[List of countries by number of Christians]]
*[[List of countries by number of Muslims]]
*[[List of Communist States]]
*[[List of Socialist States]]
*[[List of countries by GDP]]
*[[List of countries by GDP per capita]]
*[[List of languages by number of speakers]]
*[[List of capital cities]]
*[[List of U.S. capital cities]]
*[[List of former countries]]
*[[List of highest mountains]]
*[[List of longest rivers]]
*[[List of largest lakes]]

==Been to:==
{| class="wikitable"
|-bgcolor=#cccccc
|- valign="center"
|-
| [[Image:Flag of Australia.png|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of New Zealand.png|50px]]
|-
| [[Image:50 star flag.png|50px]]
|-
| [[Image:Flag of Japan.png|50px]]||[[Image:Turkeyflag.gif|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of the UAE.png|50px]]
|-
| [[Image:Flag of Germany.JPG|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of France.png|50px]]||[[Image:Union jack.jpg|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of Spain.png|50px]]||[[Image:Netherlandsflag.gif|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of Belgium.png|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of the Czech Republic.jpg|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of Ireland.png|50px]]
|-
| [[Image:Flag of Uganda.PNG|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of Morocco.png|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of Tunisia.png|50px]]||[[Image:Flag of Mauritius.png|50px]]
|}

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-09T05:19:35Z

PhilipN: You are missing my point, Conservative. Maybe it was another person before ;)

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::But the queen isn't anything to do with the "atheist religion," is she? She's head of the Anglican Church. Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Davidspencer, unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area. :) Your comment further illustrates that you no

doubt come from a higher than average socially stratified society with lower than average socially mobility in the Western World and feel the need to needlessly elevate yourself! :) By the way, consider reading Luke 14:7. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::"...unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area." Wow...
:::::::This coming from the user who talks like he knows the UK better than people who actually live there and ridicules those who disagree. User:Conservative, you are not as smart as you think you are. Just because you found a quote about the relevant subject by one person who might agree with you if interpreted a certain way, doesn't make you automatically the most knowledgable person on the subject. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:46, 8 February 2012 (GMT)

User Conservative: you make some interesting points about the cultural legacy of protestantism in Scandinavia but why doesn't the same apply to the UK? As well as being historically a centre of protestant and non-conformist thought, protestantism and non-conformism were central to the English Revolution, the colonisation of the New World, liberal humanism (eg the work of Adam Smith), the first stock and insurance markets, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire. It still remains in Britain's cultural DNA. In fact, the UK today is far more conservative than the social democratic Scandinavian countries, both socially and economically. So why doesn't your Gladwellesque reasoning apply here? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 14:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::RedGoliath, who said that I/we don't live in the UK? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::I doubt someone with such a strong interest in American politics wouldn't be living in the US. [[User:LouW|LouW]] 18:59, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::LouW, [[Vox Day]] comments on the United States frequently and he lives in Italy and hasn't lived in the United States in a decade if memory serves. Second, I/we think it is fair to say that I have commented on world events more frequently than other Admins on the front page (Europe, Asia, etc.). Third, if the United States has Greece like economic problems, it is such a big economy it would no doubt bring down the rest of the world. When the Roman Empire collapsed for example, it causes problems elsewhere. Fourth, most of my/our content at Conservapedia deals with topics that many people are interested in worldwide and my/our content helps Conservapedia have more of a global audience. Fourth, we live in a very mobile society today plus English is spoken in many places. Lastly, you don't know if I/we are many people or one. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:19, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Rafael, I did think of that. Although having the mindset of working hard helps a "underdog" become a bigger dog, I also think a society not having unnecessary barriers in the way helps too which Gladwell does talk about in his book. I also know that England has a history of social stratification compared to other countries. Here is what a Christian site says about England: “In the 1800s England had one hundred sixty crimes punishable by hanging, including ones as trivial as stealing a loaf of bread.” “I thought of this when I was reading in the Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the lengthy prison sentences that Soviet children received for stealing when they were hungry.”[http://bible.org/seriespage/lamp-loaves-and-loudmouth-leviticus-24] The Bible has restitution for stealing.

Also, there is no doubt that atheists are more likely historically to promote social Darwinism and England was at the forefront of social Darwinism.

Since people tend to be their own worst enemies, I do think an underdog's biggest asset is not having a bad mindset and having good habits and a good society should promote an industrious/virtuous mindset. In the Western World, although there are certainly young ladies who have husband's cheat on them, there are also plenty who have sex before marriage and wind up being single mothers with unruly kids. I also think feminism and selfish males increase divorce rates which causes single motherhood. Single motherhood can be a big factor when it comes to poverty and less social mobility in a society.

Here are some relevant statistics about the above as far as the United States:

In terms of household structure, households headed by women are far more likely to be poor than
other types of households. There are 4.1 million female-headed families in poverty and 2.9
million married-couple families in poverty; in total over 14.4 million households are headed by
women.73 Half of all women will potentially experience single motherhood at some point in
their lifetimes; 80 percent of black women and 45 percent of white women will become family
heads at some time during their childbearing years.74 In 2000, the distribution of female-headed
household types with children was as follows: 12 percent were headed by a woman with a
cohabitating male partner, 14.3 percent were headed by a grandmother, and 73.8 percent by a
single mother. A larger share of the households headed by a grandmother is black.75
Poverty rates in female-headed households are typically 3 to 4 times as high as those for the
overall population.76 Individuals in households that become headed by a female are extremely
likely to enter into poverty:

• When a two-adult household becomes a female-headed household, 20.1 percent entered
poverty.77
• The transition to a female-headed family accounts for 59 percent of the poverty
beginnings for female heads with children: 38 percent of these poverty spell
beginnings result from a marital breakup and 21 percent result from what is most likely
unmarried motherhood.78
• Persons in households that have been female-headed for 2 or more years are more likely
enter poverty than persons in two-adult and single male-headed households.79
• More than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households’ status is closely tied to poverty because single parent families
typically have just one potential earner and are less likely than married parents to have a fulltime
worker. When there is only one adult earner in the household, fewer hours are worked and
fewer hours are available to be worked due to care giving responsibilities. Though employment
rates are high for single women with children (almost 80% work)86, mothers who never
marry are 70 percent less likely to be working full time compared to women who have only
marital births.87 If there is not another earner in the household, grandmother-headed households
with children have extremely high odds of experiencing poverty, significantly higher (40%) than
those headed by a single mother.88[http://www.heartlandalliance.org/whatwedo/advocacy/reports/causes-of-poverty.pdf]

Martin Seligman wrote about [http://psychology.about.com/od/lindex/f/earned-helplessness.htm "learned helplessness"] and I do think that liberal's constant promotion of victimhood promotes "learned helpflessness" and often central government controlled social programs do also. After all is said and done, I think "America's war on poverty" has been a colossal failure as it rewards bad habits and causes a dependent mindset. I think when families and local communities were in charge of charity, there was more accountability and less fostering of a dependency and a victimhood mindset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:Wow, look at all those words! I didn't read any of them, but I can only assume [[User:Conservative]] won the argument. --[[User:BaileyJ|BaileyJ]] 19:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)

::I believe you forgot the "ir" before relevant. As far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with the discussed matter... There is no more reason to say that religion is the reason why Uk has worse social mobility than the US than to say that religion is the reason why Sweden has better social mobility than the US. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:16, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, you can continue to assert that religion and religious cultural legacies do not affect social mobility and industriousness, but you have failed to provide data to support this notion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::I never said that cultural legacies has no effect on social mobility but I maintain that religion is irrelevant here. I have some nice data for you:
::::* [[United Kingdom]] : 19% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf</ref> and a bad social mobility (0.5)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[United States]] : 9% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf</ref> and a bad social mobility (~0.47)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Denmark]] : 43-80% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and a very good social mobility (~0.15)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Sweden]] : 46-85% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and an average social mobility (~0.28)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Australia]] : 24-25% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and a very good social mobility (~0.18)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:59, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Philip, my main point in this section was the UK has poor social mobility and I have provided more than enough evidence that they have a history of this. I gave some statistics above which helps explain the US and social mobility and said there is a difference between equality of opportunity vs. achieving equal results (we do live in a multi-variable world). I also commented already on Denmark/Sweden. Lastly, since you seem to not want to address my points, I see it pointless to continue with you here. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:07, 9 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Conservative, I do want to address your points but those are not always clear to me. I do agree with you on the fact that the UK has poor social mobility and that the US have a better social mobility than the UK and I really do agree that we live in a multi-variable world and that is exactly my point. I do not agree with your linking the social opportunities with religion and I believe I have provided more than enough evidence that those are not related.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:19, 9 February 2012 (EST)

::::::User: BaileyJ, I realize that liberals are often allergic to data and the real world, nevertheless Britain having a history of societal stratification compared to many Western nations is still real. In addition, irresponsible centrally controlled social programs creating dependency and less social mobility is also still real. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-09T05:06:10Z

PhilipN: Sorry for this but I cannot add references if I delete the statement

In [[Britain]], where 55% of the population describe themselves as Christian<ref>http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/2011/yougovcambridge-on-religion/</ref>, people dislike [[underdog]]s and tend to root for the contestant who is favored to win. The opposite is true in the [[Christian]] [[United States]], where the underdogs have traditionally been the favorites of the people.

However, as the [[liberal media]] in the United States becomes increasingly atheistic, victories by underdogs are increasingly met with dismay or disapproval.

The failure by atheists to build hospitals illustrates their tendencies not to help the weak. The underdog epitomizes the weaker side in a contest, and atheists are fine with the underdog losing.

Why do atheists dislike underdogs?

== Belief in Survival of the Fittest ==

Atheists are fervent believers in "survival of the fittest," and this implies that the underdog will lose and '''''should''''' lose.

== Atheism Denies Faith and Hope -- the Keys to Underdog Success ==

Atheism is a denial of [[faith]] and hope, but these are essential ingredients to rooting for an underdog.

== Atheists are Wannabes, Craving Recognition ==

Atheists are wannabes, craving recognition by others whom they perceive to be smarter. This leads them to side with the team or candidate who is favored by others, particularly by other atheists.

== Clinging to a Belief Against Surprises ==

The belief system of an atheist clings to a denial that there will be any surprises like [[Hell]]. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife.

== Optimized for an audience IQ of perhaps 105 ==

Atheism is optimized for an audience having an IQ only slightly above average, perhaps 105. That audience can be more easily persuaded that because something is probable, it will happen 100% of the time. This is flawed by not recognizing the possibility of unlikely outcomes, which often result in important upsets. (Such as predictions against the existence of [[Hell]]).

== Atheism Is About Control ==

One obvious reason is that atheism is about control. Stalin, a famous atheist in the 20th century, probably did not like underdogs. Underdogs threaten the status quo and the worldview of atheists. Upset victories are unsettling to people like Stalin.

== "Militant Atheism" Is a Bullying Ideology ==

[[Militant atheism]] is, obviously, a bullying ideology. For example, it demands [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]] '''''even when everyone in the classroom wants to pray'''''. A bullying attitude is incompatible with rooting for underdogs.

== Atheists Do Not Prefer Policies that Thwart Social Mobility ==

Upward social mobility is not much easier in [[Christian]] [[United States]] than in atheistic nations<ref>OECD [http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf]</ref>, reflecting the similar views of Christianity and atheism toward underdogs.

[[Category:Mystery]]

== References ==
<references />

Temperance

2012-02-09T05:00:02Z

PhilipN: <references/>

'''Temperance''' is the ability to avoid indulging to excess; to control one's appetite and avoid yielding to [[gluttony]], [[lust]] or wild abandon. In [[Christian]] tradition, it is considered one of the four cardinal [[virtue]]s. According to [[Aquinas]], excessive [[love]] of good things is one of the primary sources of [[sin]], and temperance is the virtue needed to avoid this. [[God]]'s bountiful creation affords multifarious delights, and as the custodians of that creation it is right that people should enjoy them (see Genesis 1:29). However, this enjoyment must be tempered with [[prayer]]ful moderation to avoid leading down a sinful way.

During the 19th and 20th Centuries, the Temperance Movement was a campaign specifically aimed at encouraging moderation in [[alcohol]] consumption and/or [[teetotal]]ism. It was particularly associated with the [[Methodist]] Church<ref>[http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/REtemperance.htm Dictionary of Methodism - Temperance Society]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

{{Virtues}}

[[Category:Morality]]

Hope

2012-02-09T04:59:24Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

'''Hope''' is the confident desire of attaining a difficult good in the future. Hope includes a willingness to engage in effort to overcome any obstacles to the [[General Goal|goal]].

The opposite of hope is [[despair]].

== Hope in Christianity ==
In [[Christian]] thought, hope is one of the three divine [[virtue]]s identified by [[St Paul]] (along with [[faith]] and [[love]]). It should be noted that the original [[Greek]] word used by Paul can be translated both as "hope" and "expectation". Hope as a virtue means something stronger than a simple desire that something will happen: it also requires confidence or faith that it will come to pass (consider the phrase "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life" from the funeral [[liturgy]]).

{{Virtues}}

[[category:psychology]]
[[Category:Christianity]]

Faith

2012-02-09T04:59:14Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

[[Image:Faith.jpg|right]]
'''Faith''' (1200–50; Middle English feith < Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit < Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust.) is a confidence or trust in a person or thing. It is a confidence or trust in the achievement of God's will, even though unseen and unexpected by non-believers. It can be a belief that is not based on proof. A belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. It is also a belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc. It can also mean a system of religious belief : ''the Christian faith; the Jewish faith''.
<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith</ref>

Faith embodies more than belief. Faith elevates one's being, while belief is limited to a mental state or emotion. Faith implies a [[causation|causal]] role by the believer in an outcome<ref>For example, the Biblical [[Peter]]'s walking on water based on his faith.</ref> or in overcoming a personal fear. Faith also implies advancement or accomplishment rather than wrongdoing, while belief implies neither.

[[Liberals]] and non-believers in general (see [[Atheism]]) will often try to use common descriptions of faith against faith in God the Lord. Dictionaries and other blasphemous publications, almost always with a strong [[liberal bias]], describe faith as the blind belief in something for which there is no evidence. This, however, is wrong. Faith can also describe the true, benevolent belief in our Lord God, for which there are literally oceans of evidence, but mainstream publications simply won't admit that, probably due to satanic deceit. One should mind, however, that the true, transcedental definition of faith is *completely* different from any other, as [[Christianity]] is superior to any other form of belief.

== Faith in God vs. secular psychology for solving addictions and other personal problems ==

''See also:'' [[Ineffectivness of counseling psychology]]

The Christian group [[Teen Challenge]] reported:
{{Cquote|Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies2.php</ref>}}

Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.<ref>http://teenchallengeusa.com/studies.php</ref> Studies indicate that consumers of secular counseling [[psychology]] for [[alcoholism]] receive hardly any benefit at all.<ref>http://www.spring.org.uk/2005/07/psychological-treatments-for-alcoholism.php</ref><ref>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/5/75/abstract</ref> The [[Apostle Paul]] in a letter to the church of [[Corinth]] indicated that [[Christianity|Christians]] were able to overcome being drunkards through the power of [[Jesus Christ]] (I Corinthians 6:9-11).

[[Image:St Paul Preaching.jpg|right|thumb|200px|St. [[Paul]] defends his preaching (Giovanni Ricco)]]
The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were [[Justification (theology)|justified]] in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the [[Holy Spirit|Spirit of our God]]." - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NIV)}}

The website ''The Berean Call'' has a number of articles on various false claims and unbiblical notions that many practioners counseling psychology promote.<ref>http://www.thebereancall.org/topic/psychology</ref>

Faith plays a central role in overcoming [[addiction]]. Virtually everyone is plagued by one or more addictions, and faith enables overcoming those weaknesses. Similar to this is faith's key role in overcoming [[recidivism]]. This role is unique to Christian faith and has not been shown with regard to other religions' belief systems or to secular humanist ideologies.

Faith is also helpful in overcoming fear, such as fear of public speaking, appearing on [[television]], or standing up to a [[bully]] or unpleasant situations. Jesus reprimanded the [[Apostles]] for their [[faithless]] fear: "The disciples went and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We're going to drown!' He replied, 'You of little faith, why are you so afraid?' Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm."<ref>Mt 8:25-26 (NIV)</ref>

Lack of faith can lead to fear, anxiety, depression, lack of confidence and sometimes death. A lack of faith can be very harmful, leading to self-destructive behavior. Faith can be described as the power to ignore the [[devil]] and all his antics.

Often faith inspires extra initiative or effort, adding confidence that it will yield the desired good result. "Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on," and Jesus cured him.<ref>Mark 2:4</ref>

==Frequency==
[[File:Belief-god.jpg|thumb|550px|Financial Times (FT)/Harris Poll among adults in 5 countries in 2006]]

==Expression==
A classic statement of faith in the [[Bible]] was by the [[Roman Empire|Roman]] centurion of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%208:5-10;&version=49; Matthew 8:5-10], who expressed his confidence that [[Jesus]] could cure his beloved servant from a distance without even seeing him. [[Jesus]] repeatedly emphasized the importance and value of faith to his disciples.

Faith is expressed in [[Greek language|Greek]] using the term ''pistis'', and in [[Latin]] using the term ''fides''. Faith is mentioned in 229 verses in the [[New Testament]] ([[KJV]]), but only twice in the much larger [[Old Testament]] ([[KJV]]).<ref>http://www.crosswalk.com</ref> In attempt to convert [[Jews]] to [[Christianity]], [[Paul]] described [[Abraham]]'s willingness to sacrifice his beloved son [[Isaac]] to [[God]] as an act of faith, though the [[Old Testament]] did not describe it with that term.

Faith is strengthened by prayer ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=jude%2020;&version=9; Jude 20]). For those who strengthen their faith, [[Jesus]] promised "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father."<ref>John 14:12 (NIV).</ref>

Life itself may be the manifestation of God's faith. Decay and death may be the manifestation of a lack or denial of faith.

==Biblical examples==

Perhaps the greatest description of faith is Hebrews 11:1. It states: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."<ref>Hebrews 11:1 (NIV).</ref>

The King James Version expresses this passage as: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." The Greek word translated as "substance" is `hupostasis', meaning setting under (support). The Greek word for "evidence"`elegchos' meaning proof.,<ref>J. Strong, 1890, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN.</ref> The Bible thus distinguishes clearly between the leap of faith of Kirkegaard and a faith based on acknowledgement of the evidence presented by God within our own experiences in this world. Paul, in Romans 1:17-20 explains that faith has its basis in the observed expression of God's existence in this universe: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen...."

[[Paul]] indicated that exceptional faith may be a gift of the [[Holy Spirit]]. 1 Corinthians 12:8-9 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit

As discussed above, a potential reference to faith is [[Genesis]] 22 where [[God]] tested [[Abraham]] by commanding him to sacrifice his only son [[Isaac]]. As Abraham prepared to do what God commanded -he was stopped.
Genesis 22:12
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." 

==Martin Luther on Faith==

Luther in his Table Talk papers writes this thought provoking and rather difficult passage on faith:

"This is the acme of faith, to believe that God, who saves so few and condemns so many, is merciful; that he is just who, at his own pleasure, has made us necessarily doomed to damnation, so that he seems to delight in the torture of the wretched and is more deserving of hate than of love. If by any effort of reason I could conceive how God, who shows so much anger and harshness, could be merciful and just, there would be no need of faith."

==The Moral Basis of Biblical Faith==

The biblical expression of faith is belief in what God reveals to man to be so. Since New Testament times, that means belief in what God reveals to be so concerning Jesus Christ. There is a steady progression through time of what God reveals and so belief also finds expression in progessive content and emphasis. What God reveals to Adam, to Noah, to Moses (and through them), to the prophets, to the Ninevites, to Simeon and Anna, Mary, to the Apostles, differ in content and in emphasis, but the culmination of the content of faith is the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

The moral basis of faith is the positive response of belief, and the obedience of one's life to the requirement implied by the revelation. That is why Adam (and his generation) was not required to believe what Noah was required to believe, why Noah was not required to believe what Abraham was required to believe, and why Abraham was not required to believe what Moses was required to believe. Moses, and his generation, was not required to believe what Isaiah was required to believe, until the time of Jesus. Nor were they each allowed to believe less than what was required of them to believe, as if they were of a previous generation and a previous revelation.

The moral basis of Faith continues on in effect, content and emphasis, since the time of the Son of God on earth. That is why the "good man" is required to believe in the Son of God preached to him, as He, the Son of God, is the source of his goodness, and the forgiver of his badness, through His sacrifice on the cross; the "bad man" required to believe in Him who bore his sin, through His sacrifice on the cross; the "gentile", wherever found, of whatever stage, required to live up to what is given him by his conscience and whatever good has come to him through his culture, and believe in the light God is actually giving him, and in the Jesus being preached to him, but not required to believe in and practice the Law of Moses; the Jew required to keep the Law given him, and then to despair at not having fulfilled it, and believe in the Son of God being revealed to him; the infant respond, as infants can, and not as adolescents and adults are required, each in his own order, until the greater revelation comes, and separation from the dominance and protection of the elders; and why an embryo aborted is required to respond as only an embryo can, which God alone knows, and not be required to be at the level of response he would have been moments and days and months and years later, if he would have been let live - saved - though the embryo would never have known how - by the Cross of the sin bearing Savior, who knew him well and loved him. "to him whom much has been given, of him much will be required."

==The natural and the supernatural aspects of Faith==
Faith is a gift from God that may be viewed two ways. One is clearly an intrusion or at least and introjection into our ordinary lives. Under this aspect, we see it as pure grace. "For by grace are you saved through faith, and this is not as a result of your deeds, It is God's gift and not something from ourselves". Our response, is from the extremity of our situation and as a clear product of something outside ourselves - the new word of God, the message concerning Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Even the ability to hear and understand is given to us from above, "Faith comes by hearing, and "hearing" itself, comes by the Word of God". And thus we call out, from the depth and from consiousness, for salvation. " Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord, will be saved/"

The other aspect of Faith is not by intrusion or introjection, but by infusion and irradiation. This too is of the grace of God. Whereas the first aspect had come to us at our extremity from without, this aspect comes to us from within and around, pervading the so-called natural structures that we experience every day, that are so supportive of stability, confidence, trust and hope. Good parenting, solidity of home and provision, loving faithfulness among friends as we grow, continual exposure to the truth of the Word of God (and truth is always therapeutic), strengthens our faith, and our expectation for the continuing faithfulness and involvment of a loving and good God. Faith seems so natural, so in accord, with our experience, that we could even be surprised that it could have been otherwise. Here we experience, most often, not a crisis of faith, but the need to give ourselves more fully to Him in whom we are believing. Under this aspect, God is to be appreciated and acknowledged for being our good and heavenly Father. The Old Testament presents us with the reality of this aspect of faith. Amidst even the miraculous events as the parting of the "Red" Sea, and the many deliverences Israel experience so beyond their natural ability to effect, little is said, is acknowledged consciously, of the quality of faith itself. It is air that a fish is most conscious of, not his home in the water.

==Faith: the Access to Reality==
Christianity demands Faith and insists that Faith be turned into sight. "Do you believe, Thomas, because you have seen. Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe." Throughout the New Testament, this theme occurs, belief in Jesus, belief in the Heavenly Father, belief in the readiness of God to still waves, cause you too to walk on water, to return a dead girl back to her grieving, believing mother, to see small insignificant things as a seed grow, as if miraculously of itself, into a startling display of fruit to eat and protection for birds, all of this, with only the sky to limit, comes into our lives, according to Jesus, if we have Faith. Reality is gained by the exercise of Faith, a reality unattainable by the ordinary means frequented by men.

But this reality attained, so extraordinary in this sordid and marred sin-infested world, is seen to be the "normal" reality of the Kingdom of Heaven, just waiting to enter in. Entirely right in the presence of the Kingdom of God and the King Himself for the dead boy to get up from his bier to run to his mother, entirely right that that adultress be pardoned, strengthened, challenged, and hold her head up high once again, entirely right the demons come out of the tormented boy to be commanded to go to the place that God has prepared for them, all entirely right at the entrance of this new reality of the Kingdom of Heaven among us, and the King Himself, Jesus. The overwhelming of reality, by Reality.

As God is palpable in Jesus, so the Reality of the Kingdom of God is palpable, and can be seen, on this earth. The entrance to the Garden was by faith, but the reality of the garden is as tangible as was Jesus eating fish with his disciples after he got up from the dead. As much as the New Testament presents Faith as the entrance to the Kingdom, so does it insist that Faith, perhaps not fully in this world, shall turn to sight in the end... and on the way. "It is not apparent what we who are called the children of God shall yet be, but we know that we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He really is."

==Faith as a virtue==
[[Image:Konrad Witz – Petri fiskafänge.jpg|thumb|right|210px|The 'walking on water' episode, which both showed and tested St Peter's faith (painting by Konrad Witz).]]
[[St Paul]] identified faith, [[hope]] and [[love]] (or [[charity]]) as the three greatest [[virtue]]s that are central to Christianity, and this idea is repeated and elaborated upon throughout Christian tradition. Faith is put first because it provides the foundation upon which the other two are built: a faithful heart and mind cause one to have hope, and hope causes one to have love for God and one's fellow man.

In [[Dante]]'s [[Divine Comedy]], [[St Peter]] is most identified with faith. This is appropriate, since he was the 'rock' on which the Church was built, just as a Christian life must be rooted in faith. Peter's great faith is shown in Matthew 14:28-31, when he is briefly able to walk on water until doubt enters his mind.

Christian philosopher [[Robert Merrihew Adams]] wrote a book, ''The Virtue of Faith'', to defend the idea of faith as virtuous. Consider the case of a loved one accused of some wrongdoing, but who protests their innocence - our relationship with them creates a special ethical obligation to believe what they say, which does not apply to the protestations of innocence of strangers; at the same time, that obligation is not absolute, but can be overturned by the evidence. Adams uses this example to argue that some beliefs we are ethically obliged to hold, and argues that the existence of God could be such a belief for the believer.

Contrary to Adams' view is that favored by many atheists, classically expressed by William Kingdon Clifford, in his 1877 essay ''The Ethics of Belief'', which states "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." However, while Clifford can point to individual cases where believing things without evidence is unethical, those cases fail to demonstrate that his principle is true in every case, and he ignores valid cases such as those which Adams cites which lead to the opposite conclusion.

{{clear}}

== Uniqueness to Christianity ==
Christianity is unique among religions in that its followers are defined by faith rather than by adherence to a prescribed code. St Paul makes this distinction clear in Galatians 3:24-25:
{{cquote|The law was a kind of tutor in charge of us until Christ should come, when we should be justified through faith; and now that faith has come, the tutor's charge is at an end.}}
That is to say, whereas [[Judaism]] required (and still requires) its followers to obey the law, Christianity begins with faith, and any moral or ethical decisions must follow from that. In this regard, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than it does with Christianity: the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission to God'.

==Other Definitions and Religions==

Outside of [[Christianity]], faith is misused as a synonym for "belief". The [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary, for example, includes this definition of faith: "a system of religious beliefs."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith</ref>

Alternatively, faith often refers to a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or evidence.

In the [[Koran]], the concept of submission to [[Allah]] is mentioned 11 times, while the concept of faith in Allah is mentioned only once.

Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone, specifically [[Christ]]. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of [[divinity]]. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in [[providence]], as it entails an active role for the believer himself for advancing good.

The literary critic Harold Bloom distinguishes Christianity from the other two dominant monotheistic religions in his book Agon by contrasting them with Gnosticism:

"Gnosticism polemically is decidedly not a faith, whether in the Christian sense, pisits, a believing that something was, is, and will be so; or in the Hebraic sense, emunah, a trusting in the Covenant. If religion is a binding, then Gnosticism is an unbinding, but not for the sake of things or persons merely as they are. Gnostic freedom is a freedom for knowledge, knowledge of what in the self, not in the psyche or soul, is Godlike, and knowledge of God beyond the cosmos. But also it is a freedom to be known, to be known by God, by what is alien to everything created, by what is alien to and beyond the stars and the cosmic system and our earth."

Faith is emphasized in Christianity but is unrecognized by the worldview of [[Philosophical Skepticism|philosophical skepticism]].
== See also ==

*[[Resources on becoming a Christian]]
*[[Salvation]]
*[[Atheism]]

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:religion]]
[[Category:philosophy]]

== External links ==
* Holding, James Patrick, [http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html Fallacious Faith]
*[http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/finding-faith-in-christ/video/finding-faith-in-christ Finding Faith in Christ], video at ''JesusChrist.lds.org''

{{Virtues}}

Charity

2012-02-09T04:59:06Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

[[Image:Bouguereau Charity.jpg|thumb|Charity / [[Adolphe William Bouguereau|Bouguereau]]]]
'''Charity''' has several meanings, from the commonly used and understood, to the abstract and technical:

*''Charity'', as used most commonly, refers to generosity, especially the giving of time or resources without the expectation of Earthly reward. The noun refers to an institution that engages in such behavior. <ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charity</ref>

*''Charity'': as a [[Christian]] [[virtue]].<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm</ref> This is enumerated among the Divine virtues by St. [[Paul]] in 1 Corinthians 13:13. It is the greatest of the three, included with [[hope]] and [[faith]]. In this sense, charity refers to a divinely infused love, unlimited and directed toward Man and toward [[God]].

*''Charity'' is also one of the fruits of the [[Holy Spirit]]. The [[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them.
 

==Charity and Religion==

Charity is important to most religions, and is practiced by both religious and secular people and organizations.

*[[Christianity]]: the Catholic theologic sense is mentioned above. Most Christian faiths require practitioners to give of themselves as they are able, following the command of [[Jesus]] in [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]] 6:30 ([[KJV]]): "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask [them] not again." Also, [[the parable of the sheep and the goats]] in [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 25:31-46<ref>Matthew 25:31-46 (KJV) [http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat025.html#31]</ref> shows the necessity of charity to [[salvation]]. Many Christian denominations ask for a [[tithe]], or one-tenth of the income, to go to the church, a portion of which is then given to charity outside of the church. No specific figure is given for how much to give outside of the church body.
*[[Islam]]: charity ('زكاة', 'zakat', in Arabic) is one of the [[Five Pillars]] of the religion. A tithe of money (normally 2.5%) is given to help the poorest in society. Implementation of this pillar in Muslim countries is spotty at best.<ref>http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/05/us-most-charitable-nation-oil-rich-muslim-countries-give-almost-nothing.html</ref>
*[[Judaism]]: Judaism uses the concept of ''tzedakah'', or ''righteousness''. The theology behind this is quite layered and complex.

In both the Christian and Islamic faiths, charity is not considered righteous if done to enhance the giver's reputation. Thus private and discreet charity is prompted by love not status.
:''Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.'' [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]] 6:1 (Christian Scripture from the [[Bible]])
:''If you give alms openly, it is well; but if you do it secretly and give to the poor, that is better.'' [[Koran|Qur-an]] 2:271a (Islamic Scripture)

For [[libertarians]], charity is the choice of the individual, as any societal intervention must be voluntary, and based on the decision of the individual. It goes against libertarian belief to tax people involuntarily and redistribute wealth as "charity".<ref>''Ask Dr. Ruwart: Libertarians and Taxation" [http://www.theadvocates.org/ruwart/questions_maint.php?s_keyword=charity&id=226]</ref>

====United States cities with the highest volunteer participation in religious venues====

* [[Salt Lake City]] 21.8%
* [[Charlotte]] 15.9%
* [[Minneapolis]]/[[St. Paul (City)|St. Paul]] 14.6%
* [[Omaha]] 14.6%
* [[Nashville]], 14.5%
* [[Louisville]] 14.5%
* [[Tulsa]] 13.6%
* [[Kansas City]] 12.9%
* [[Dallas]] 12.2%
* [[Oklahoma City]] 11.9%<ref>''[[Christianity Today]]'', Sept. 2007, Pg. 19</ref>

====Americans have a long tradition of charitable giving and volunteerism====

The United States is “a land of charity,” says Arthur Brooks, an expert on philanthropy and a professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, who sees charitable giving and volunteerism as the signal characteristic of Americans. Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions. The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. Donations from individuals, including bequests, accounted for 83.3 percent of total giving last year, or $245.8 billion, he told USINFO.<ref>http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html</ref>

Higher faith-based giving in the US explains 60% of the difference in proportion of GDP given to charity in the US and the UK. Religion giving accounts for a third of US charity donations, compared to 13% in the UK. <ref name="InternationalComparisons">[https://www.cafonline.org/publications/archive/international-giving.aspx International Comparisons of Charitable Giving (November 2006) Briefing Paper, Charities Aid Foundation] </ref>.

==Levels of giving per country==

The following is a table of national giving levels as a percentage of GDP.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Country
! Level of Giving as % of GDP
|-
| [[USA]]
| 1.67
|-
| [[UK]]
| 0.73
|-
| [[Canada]]
| 0.72
|-
| [[Australia]]
| 0.69
|-
| [[South Africa]]
| 0.64
|-
| [[Republic of Ireland]]
| 0.47
|-
| [[Netherlands]]
| 0.45
|-
| [[Singapore]]
| 0.29
|-
| [[New Zealand]]
| 0.29
|-
| [[Turkey]]
| 0.23
|-
| [[Germany]]
| 0.22
|-
| [[France]]
| 0.14
|}

The UK is especially proactive with donating to overseas charities, compromising 13% of total giving. In contrast, only 3% of US contributions goes to international

The lower levels of giving in some European countries reflects an expectation that social services should be provided through [[socialist]] state institutions. There is also an general inverse relationship between the rate of income tax and the level of giving. <ref name="InternationalComparisons"/>.

== See also ==

*[[Altruism]]
*[[Greed]]
*[[Capitalism]]

==References==
<references/>

{{Virtues}}

[[category:economics]]

{{Conservatism}}

Modesty

2012-02-09T04:58:55Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

'''Modesty'''

One of the fruits of the [[Holy Spirit]].

The [[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them.

{{Virtues}}

Humility

2012-02-09T04:58:50Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

'''Humility''' is the quality by which a person does not perceive themselves to be superior to others, whether in importance or ability. It is a virtue of many religions, including [[Christianity]], [[Islam]] and [[Buddhism]], and is often appreciated on a social level.

==Humility in scripture==
*James 4:10
*Micah 6:8

{{Virtues}}

Chastity

2012-02-09T04:58:43Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

[[Image:Chastity-ring.jpg|left|thumb|A [[purity ring]], an outward symbol of chastity]]
'''Chastity''' is the virtue of keeping pure by avoiding improper sexual relationships.

Chastity is one of the fruits of the [[Holy Spirit]].

The [[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them.

== See also ==
*[[Virginity]]
*[[Celibacy]]
*[[Mary (mother of Jesus)]]
*[[Purity ring]]

{{Virtues}}

Temperance

2012-02-09T04:58:35Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

Religion

2012-02-09T04:58:30Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

"'''Religion'''" refers to a set of core beliefs upon which people base their lives. Morality is often based on religion. Beyond this general definition, the word "religion" is used in several ways:

* '''Formal definition''': "The service and worship of [[God]] or the [[supernatural]];"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> Under this definition, [[atheism]], [[agnosticism]], and [[secular humanism]] are not "religions." <ref>Religious Groups Participating in Religious Congregations & Membership Study 2000. [http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/alldenoms.asp]</ref>.
* '''Functional definition''': "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> By this definition, non-theistic belief systems such as [[atheism]], [[humanism]], and [[agnosticism]] could be considered religions. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the [[United States of America]] has acknowledged that "religion" does not need to include a belief in a god or gods, and included Secular Humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion.<ref>"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.". [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488#t11 Torcaso v. Watkins, (1961)]</ref><ref>"A federal court of appeals ruled ... Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat [[atheism]] as a religion." [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 Court rules [[atheism]] a religion] WorldNet Daily</ref>
* '''Organisational definition''': Under the definition, the term refers to a particular religious organisation or movement, such a [[Roman Catholic|Catholicism]], [[Methodist|Methodism]], or [[Lutheran]]ism. These groups generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, and a set of individual and communal practices. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I don't go to church—but I believe in God."
* '''Practical definition''': Under this definition, the term refers to a set of practices, rites, or rituals observed by followers. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I'm not into rituals. My relationship with God is enough."

== List of religions ==
Religions can be classified according to how many gods the religion recognises.
=== Monotheistic religions ===

Monotheistic ("one god") religions are followed by the vast majority of the world's population.

* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Christianity]]
* [[Messianic Judaism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

=== Polytheistic religions ===
Polytheistic ("many gods") religions believe in and worship multiple gods or spirits or other supernatural beings. Polytheism has declined since the rise of Christianity, but has seen a recent resurgence among pagan cults in developed nations.

* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[Paganism]]

* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shinto]]
* [[Wicca]]

=== Pantheistic religions ===
Pantheistic ("all is god") religions believe that all of creation or nature is divine.

* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs

It is also worth noting the existence of 'Panentheism' and the importance of distinguishing it from Pantheism. Panentheism is the belief that God is ''in'' all things and is chiefly manifest in [[Animism]]. Nonetheless, Pantheism and Panentheism have also been shown to feature in some outlooks generally defined as 'Monotheistic' (cf. [[Baruch Spinoza]]).

=== Non-theistic religions and philosophies===
Non-theistic religions do not have a belief in God or gods. Some consider the existence of God to be unknown or irrelevant, while (strong) [[Atheism]] is the belief that asserts it is false.
* [[Agnostic]]ism
* [[Atheism]]
** [[Strong atheism]]
** [[Weak atheism]]
* [[Buddhism]] (though with elements of [[Polytheism]]. The ''devas'' that are found in a supporting role in the Tipitika are not strictly comparable to gods, as they are ultimately mortal.)
* [[Secular Humanism]]
* [[Scientology]] Has stories containing extraterrestrials though none are claimed to be divine.
* The [[Raelism|Raëlian Church]], base on the [[Ancient astronaut theory]].

=== Parody and joke religions ===
Several "religions" have been invented in an effort to denigrate or parody traditional religions. As a rule, these religions do not have followers who actually believe the tenets of the religions.

* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Last Thursdayism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]

== Faith in organised religion ==

The percentage of respondents answering they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in organised religion has decreased in the [[United States]] according to a [[Gallup]] poll taken in 2007. Only 46% of respondents selected either of the choices above. The numbers peaked at 68% in May 1975.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg. 24</ref>

== Development of religion ==

Secular scholars and liberals, in order to justify their own postmodernist ideal that religious faith is a subjective issue, all religions are equally valid, there are no absolutes and consequently morality is relative, tend to take an evolutionary approach to the development of religion in human societies.

They usually suscribe to the idea that religion first started off as a primitive form of Animism or Spirit Worship, then evolved into polytheistic tribal/national religions, and then from one of these religions emerged Zoroastrianism which saw a gradual decrease in its number of gods until it eventually was transformed into a monotheistic religion, which in turn evolved into the well organized, theologically complex and philosophically deep monotheistic faiths of today such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

This idea regarding the development of religion continues to appear in liberal publications, despite the fact that it has little real substantiation and is merely an assumption by liberal scholars, who often hold a certain kind of prejudice towards organized religion.

In reality, the exact opposite viewpoint has more substantiating anthropological evidence. Namely, the viewpoint that Monotheism (faith in one sole creator deity) was the original form of religion, but gradually corrupted until it fragmented into various polytheistic religions, which in turn decayed further giving rise to pantheistic and atheistic religions.

For example, expert egyptologist Flinders Petrie suggests there is sufficient archaological evidence to conclude that the religion of the ancient Egyptians, which is normally categorized as a typical polytheistic religion, was not originally polytheistic, but in fact a monotheistic faith, which only in the later years of the Egyptian empire shifted from monotheism to polytheism.

similarly, doctor Steven Rangdon of Oxford University based on his research of ancient Babylonian inscriptions concludes that the ancient Babylonian religion like the ancient Egyptian religion was also originally monotheistic, and only in the later stages of the Babylonian civilization did it start to transform into a polytheistic and idolatrous religion. Interestingly, this was also the case with the ancient Sumerian religion. The Sumerians believed in over 5000 gods at the time of the end of their civilization. At the start of their history, however, they only worshiped one god, the god of the sky. It is more than likely that the Sumerian god of the sky is the same God of the heavens of the Hebrew Bible.

Interestlingly, this trend can also be seen in far Eastern religions. Shinto (神道), a native polytheistic religion of Japan which now believes in the existence of thousands of deities, was in fact originally a religion with only three gods. As time passed, however, the religion started to fall into a state of decay as believers started to arbitrarily created more and more new gods of their own. The further one goes back in Japanese history the number of gods in Shinto lessens significantly. In addition, some Japanese scholars, for example evangelical theologian Kubo Arimasa, postulate that it is possible that Shinto was in fact originally monotheistic, and the three originals gods decribed in the opening of the oldest known Shinto text ''Kojiki'' were, in fact, originally one creator God, identical to the creator of the Old Testament.

This monotheism → polytheism → pantheism religion curruption hypothesis is also in concordance with the scriptures of the Old Testament which tells explicitly that the origin of polytheistic, idolatrous and pagan religions was the rebellion of sinners who sought to free themselves from the laws of the true creator, the Lord Yahaweh.

==References==
<references/>

==See also==
* [[World Religions by Number of Followers]]
*[[Christianity in Conservapedia]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/religion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Religion], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/is-there-a-god Opposing Views: Is There a God?]

{{Virtues}}

[[Category:Religion]]

Justice

2012-02-09T04:58:21Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

[[Image:Giotto - Scrovegni - -43- - Justice.jpg|right|200px|thumb|A personification of Justice, painted by [[Giotto]].]]
'''Justice''' is the attribute of fairness, especially in a [[court]] of law. The concept of justice is often misunderstood, being easily confused with retribution or punishment. The phrase "bring him to justice" means arresting a suspect, trying him, and having him sentenced; but it has also been used to refer to [[lynching]].

Some people have slogan, "No justice, no peace" meaning that they will refuse to act peacefully until they receive justice. This, obviously, is the opposite of [[Gandhi]]'s philosophy of ''Satyagraha''. During the US [[Civil rights movement]], however, Martin Luther King implored his followers to follow Gandhi's idea of suffering injustice willingly as a means of eradicating evil.

Justice seen as confronting evil with evil - or "stripe with stripe" - is based on an idea of balance. One bad turn deserves another. In a way, this is an improvement on the ancient notion of unlimited revenge. Someone offends you, and you kill him (or him and his whole family, village, etc.)

When Moses received the [[Ten Commandments]] from God, along with the other 600 laws, the concept of retribution was cemented in the ancient Jewish understanding. To modern Christians, it may seem harsh, but it was actually better to have "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" which is equal retribution than unregulated vengeance.

The idea of justice an vengeance has predominated in history, and it even remains today in Christian America.

== Justice in Christianity ==
In [[Christian]] tradition, justice is one of the four cardinal [[virtue]]s. [[Biblical]]ly, justice is exemplified by just rulers such as King [[David]], although one does not have to be a ruler or judge in order to act justly. Anyone can display the virtue of justice during everyday life by, for example, avoiding [[prejudice]] and [[deceit]], behaving [[honor]]ably during business dealings, and speaking out against injustice where it occurs.

{{Virtues}}

[[category:philosophy]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Patience

2012-02-09T04:58:13Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

'''Patience'''. One of the fruits of the [[Holy Spirit]].

The [[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them.

== See also ==

*[[Mary (mother of Jesus)]]

{{Virtues}}

[[Category:Christian Theology]]

Fortitude

2012-02-09T04:58:08Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

'''Fortitude''' (or '''moral courage''') is the strength of mind and character needed to do what is right, no matter how adverse the circumstances or how strong the opposition. In [[Christian]] tradition it is considered one of the four cardinal [[virtue]]s. As well as having the courage to act righteously, fortitude can also describe having the courage ''not'' to do wrong, for example, a teenager having enough character to resist peer-group pressure to drink [[alcohol]] or take illegal [[drug]]s.

There are many historical examples of fortitude, including the early Christians who endured great persecution to spread [[God]]'s word. Many were [[martyr]]ed rather than do what they thought was wrong or [[sin]]ful.

== See also ==
*[[Conservative parables]]

{{Virtues}}

[[Category:Morality]]

Prudence

2012-02-09T04:57:23Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

'''Prudence''' is the ability to use [[reason]] and good judgement to manage oneself. The opposite of prudence is rashness or, more generally, foolishness. An example of prudence would be saving [[money]] or other goods during profitable times in order to have something to fall back on in more trying circumstances ([[Joseph]] set a good precedent for this as [[viceroy]] of [[Egypt]]).

In [[Christian]] tradition, prudence (or wisdom) is one of the four cardinal [[virtue]]s. [[Solomon]] is the foremost example of this virtue.

{{Virtues}}

[[Category:Morality]]

Art

2012-02-09T04:57:11Z

PhilipN: {{Virtues}}

[[Image:Clausell Study.jpg|right|Joaquin Clausell Study]]
'''Art''' is a term used to describe objects or ideas that are creative in origin or design. It is typically defined as the conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of [[beauty]], specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.<ref>American Heritage Dictionary</ref>

''[[The arts]]'' is a term broader than "''art''", which usually means the visual arts (fine art and decorative art). ''The arts'' encompasses visual arts, performing arts ([[Music]] and [[dance]]), language arts ([[Literature]]) and culinary arts. The major general surveys on topics in the fine arts are [[painting]], [[sculpture]], [[drawing]], [[photography]] and [[architecture]].

==Liberalism and art==
[[Liberals]] use art to express their [[political]] views, hoping to gain extra protection for their political speech by claiming that it is not really political but merely "artistic expression". This has been used to defend [[hate speech]] in the case of an art exhibit in the 1980s which invited museum goers to step on an American Flag and then record their opinions in a journal.{{fact}}


In 2008, visual artist [[Shepard Fairey]] utilized [[Socialist]] and [[Communist]] propaganda poster aesthetics to create the infamous [[Barack Obama]] "HOPE" campaign poster. Fairey's work has long employed visual elements directly referencing [[fascist]] imagery, styling and color palettes. His representation of Obama bore striking resemblance to socialist realism and recalled posters used to promote [[Mao]], [[Stalin]] and [[Lenin]]. This iconographic image became synonymous with Obama's presidential campaign, despite claims by the [[Associated Press]] that Fairey had illegally stolen the original image from their photo archives. In a September 2008 article on [[San Francisco]]-based news website SF Gate, Fairey admitted freely that he employed propaganda techniques, saying, "The illustration does have roots in propaganda art... I also want it to seem like a patriotic image, but not be seen as too countercultural... It needed just enough mainstream ingredients to transcend."<ref>http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-09-18/entertainment/17159255_1_shepard-fairey-poster-street-artist</ref>


== See also ==
[[Image:Adriaen van Ostade El pintor en su estudio.jpg|thumb|280px|Adriaen van Ostade, The painter in his studio (Self portrait).]]
''The secret of art is love.'' — Emile Antoine Bourdelle (1861-1929), French sculptor, studied with Rodin<ref>WordSpingle.com</ref>

*[[Art movements]]
*[[Art history]]
*[[Painting Schools]]
*[[Painting Galleries]]
*[[Aesthetics]]
*[[Bible Art Gallery]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.artsusa.org/public_awareness/ National Arts Education]
*[http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/life_and_culture/the_arts.html The Arts] U. S. Life, Culture and History.
*[http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/academic-art.html Academic Art] Artcyclopedia.
*[http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/grad/art/search Best Graduate Schools - Fine Arts] Ranked in 2008.
*[http://www.kevinalfredstrom.com/art/main.php Art Gallery.] Kevin Alfred Strom.
[[File:CATHERINE GODDARD CHIPPENDALE BUREAU TABLE.jpg|thumb|left|The masterfully designed and crafted table, known as the Catherine Goddard Chippendale Block-and-Shell Carved and Figured Mahogany Bureau Table, is attributed to the Newport, Rhode Island cabinetmaker John Goddard (1724-1785).]]

{{Clear}}

==References==
<references/>

{{Virtues}}

[[category:Art]]

Virtue

2012-02-09T04:56:34Z

PhilipN: template

[[Image:Giotto - Scrovegni - -41- - Fortitude.jpg|thumb|right|90px|Fortitude (painting by [[Giotto]])]]
A '''virtue''' is an action, personality type, or character trait widely accepted to be wholesome and ideal in nature. Examples of virtues are: [[Honesty]], [[Respect]], [[Trustworthiness]], [[Empathy]] and [[Chivalry]]. A '''virtuous''' person is one who strives for high [[moral]] standards.

== Christianity ==

[[St Paul]] identified the three greatest virtues as [[faith]], [[hope]] and [[love]]<ref>1 Corinthians 13:13</ref> (or [[charity]] - the word ''caritas'' can be translated either way). In [[Christian]] tradition, these are often known as the three theological virtues, and listed alongside four other '''cardinal virtues''':
*[[justice]]
*[[fortitude]] (or moral courage)
*[[temperance]]
*[[prudence]] (or wisdom)<ref>[http://www.thefourvirtues.com/ The Four Virtues]</ref>.

There is no express [[biblical]] basis for the cardinal virtues, although they can be found in the [[apocrypha]] in Wisdom 8:7<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/bible/wis008.htm Book of Wisdom, Chapter 8]</ref>. Together with the three theological virtues, this gives a total of seven virtues to match the [[Seven Deadly Sins]]; contrasting portrayals of the sins and virtues are common in religious [[art]].

Before the twentieth century, a common meaning of "virtue" was as a [[euphemism]] for [[virginity]]. This usage is common in the writings of [[Shakespeare]] and many other pre-modern authors.
{{clear}}

Virtues may be divided into intellectual virtues, moral virtues and theological virtues.

=== Intellectual virtues ===
Intellectual virtue may be defined as a habit perfecting the intellect.
There are two intellectual virtues:
*[[Art]], the right method with regard to external productions (recta ratio factibilium)
*[[Prudence]], the right method of conduct (recta ratio agibilium)

=== Moral virtues ===
Moral virtues are those which perfect the appetitive faculties of the soul, namely, the will and the sensuous appetite.
==== [[Justice]] ====
Justice, an essentially moral virtue, regulates man in relations with his fellow-men. Justice may be divided into annexed virtues:
*[[Religion]], which regulates man in his relations to [[God]]
*[[Piety]], which disposes to the fulfillment of duties which one owes to parents and country (also [[patriotism]])
*[[Gratitude]], which inclines one to recognition of benefits received
*[[Liberality]], which restrains the immoderate affection for wealth from withholding seasonable gifts or expenses
*[[Affability]], by which one is suitably adapted to his fellow-men in social intercourse so as to behave toward each appropriately
==== [[Temperance]] ====
Temperance is that moral virtue which moderates in accordance with reason the desires and pleasures of the sensuous appetite attendant on those acts by which human nature is preserved in the individual or propagated in the species. The subordinate species of temperance are:
*[[Abstinence]], which disposes to moderation in the use of [[food]]
*[[Sobriety]], which inclines to moderation in the use of spirituous [[liquors]]
*[[Chastity]], which regulates the appetite in regard to sexual pleasures
The virtues annexed to temperance are:
*[[Continence]], which restrains the will from consenting to violent movements or concupiscence
*[[Humility]], which restrains inordinate desires of one's own excellence
*[[Meekness]], which checks inordinate movements of anger
*[[Modesty]], which consists in duly ordering the external movements of anger; to the direction of reason
==== [[Fortitude]] ====
Fortitude, which implies a certain moral strength and courage, is the virtue by which one meets and sustains dangers and difficulties, even death itself. The virtues annexed to fortitude are:
*[[Patience]], which disposes us to bear present evils with equanimity
*[[Munificence]], which disposes one to incur great expenses for the suitable doing of a great work
*[[Magnanimity]] is the virtue which regulates man with regard to honours. The magnanimous man aims at great works in every line of virtue, making it his purpose to do things worthy of great honour
*[[Perseverance]], the virtue which disposes to continuance in the accomplishment of good works in spite of the difficulties attendant upon them

=== Theological virtues ===
The theological virtues are three:
*[[Faith]] is an infused virtue, by which the intellect is perfected by a supernatural light, in virtue of which, under a supernatural movement of the will, it assents firmly to the supernatural truths of Revelation, not on the motive of intrinsic evidence, but on the sole ground of the infallible authority of God revealing
*[[Hope]] which allow us to trust, with an unshaken confidence grounded on the Divine assistance, to attain life everlasting
*[[Charity]] is that theological virtue, by which God, our ultimate end, known by supernatural light, is loved by reason of His own intrinsic goodness or amiability, and our neighbour loved on account of God

==Opposition to virtue==

* Wojtyla says that many people devalue the virtues in order to excuse themselves from having to live by a higher standard. Since they don't want to make the effort to change, they treat the virtues lightheartedly or even openly attack them in order to justify their own lack of moral character. "Resentment . . . not only distorts the features of the good but devalues that which rightly deserves respect so that man need not struggle to raise himself to the level of the true good, but can 'light-heartedly' recognize as good only what suits him, what is convenient and comfortable to him" (p. 144).<ref> [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/marriage/mf0073.html Resenting Chastity]</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Drug abuse]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Virginity]]
*[[Credibility]]

{{Virtues}}

[[Category:Ethics]]
[[Category:Morality]]

Template:Virtues

2012-02-09T04:55:37Z

PhilipN: Created page with "{{Navbox |name=Virtues |title=Virtues |state = {{{state|autocollapse}}} |above = |group1style=font-size: 85%; |group1=Intellectual virtues |list1style=font-size: 85%..."

{{Navbox
|name=Virtues
|title=[[Virtue|Virtues]]
|state = {{{state|autocollapse}}}
|above =

|group1style=font-size: 85%;
|group1=Intellectual virtues
|list1style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white;
|list1={{nowrap|[[Art]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Prudence]]}}

|group2style=font-size: 85%;
|group2=Moral virtues
|list2style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white;
|list2={{nowrap|[[Fortitude]] ({{nowrap|[[Magnanimity]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Munificence]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Patience]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Perseverance]]}}) }} {{nowrap|[[Justice]] ({{nowrap|[[Affability]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Gratitude]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Liberality]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Piety]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Religion]]}}) }} {{nowrap|[[Temperance]] ({{nowrap|[[Abstinence]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Chastity]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Sobriety]]}} -- {{nowrap|[[Continence]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Humility]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Meekness]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Modesty]]}}) }}

|group3style=font-size: 85%;
|group3=Theological virtues
|list3style=font-size: 85%; background-color:white;
|list3={{nowrap|[[Charity]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Faith]] •}} {{nowrap|[[Hope]]}}

}}<includeonly>[[Category:Virtues]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Category:Navigation box|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{TemplateDoc|pages=Pages defining [[virtue]]s|purpose=Bottom navigation box|cat=Virtues}}
{{Parms|
}}
</noinclude>

User talk:Bogart12

2012-02-09T04:40:35Z

PhilipN: Welcome

{{welcome}}--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:40, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Virtue

2012-02-09T04:38:06Z

PhilipN: Improved

Virtue

2012-02-09T04:24:32Z

PhilipN: Added listing

Talk:Conservapedia proven right

2012-02-09T04:10:05Z

PhilipN:

The two rows about gold seem repetitive. How about combining into only one row?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:23, 20 November 2011 (EST)
:::It is a lot of information plus Conservapedia mentioned gold and precious metals a lot. But at the same time reportedly positively about having a broad commodity strategy if possible. I think it would make a very long single entry. I will look at it though. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:18, 20 November 2011 (EST)
::::::I will combine them. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Cristie and Palin ==

If Conservapedia thought those two weren't likely nominees why is [[Presidential Election 2012|Palin still listed as one]] and [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&diff=938676&oldid=937791 Christie was only removed as a potential nominee only two days ago]?

:The way that mathematical probabilities work, nobody, including Palin, has an absolute zero probability of being nominated. An absolute zero probability for an uncertainty is, by definition, impossible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:05, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Newt Gingrich ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Newt Gingrich is the most likely to win the Republican nomination for President"
*Ranking of Potential Republican Candidates by Likelihood of Winning Nomination as per the linked article right now: #1 - Mitt Romney
So Conservapedia is proven right for a prediction it's not making anymore? Oh, let me guess: If Mitt Romney wins the nomination after all, you will again claim that Conservapedia is proven right by linking to the first version where he happened to be at the top?

Make up your mind - either actually promote Newt as your top choice or strike this out. It's not much of a prediction when you're basically playing "Heads, I win! Tails, you lose!" with the wiki revision system. ;) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:41, 22 November 2011 (EST)
:I see that the "most likely" list at least reflects this "prediction" again. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

== Britain, atheism and the World Cup ==

*Conservapedia statement: "Atheistic Britain would embarrass itself in the World Cup"
*Liberal claptrap in response: "Liberal denial shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement"
*Result: "'England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa.'"
Uh... your logic isn't sound. You roughly guessed a soccer result correctly, but that doesn't prove anything about a supposed correlation between atheism and underachievement.

Let's look at the actual statistics and results:
*Both England and the religious USA dropped out in the Top 16 round.
*The Top 3 spots of the World Cup went to Spain, the Netherlands and Germany (in that order).
*[http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html This] site lists somewhat recent atheism/agnostic/nonbeliever rates per country:
**Spain: 15 - 24%
**Netherlands: 39 - 44%
**Germany: 41 - 49%
**Britain (as a yardstick for "atheistic country"): 31 - 44%
**USA (as a yardstick for a religious country): 3 - 9%
What was that? Correlation between atheism and underachieving? Citing the World Cup 2010 as an example? Not quite. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:08, 22 November 2011 (EST)

:Obviously nobody said atheism was the ''only'' factor. Of course there are other factors in fielding a successul soccer team, such as the level of interest in the sport.

:Looking at British soccer performance over time isolates the effect of atheism. As atheism has grown in Britain, it's ability to compete in the World Cup has fallen to pathetically weak levels. Atheism causes underachievement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:09, 22 November 2011 (EST)
::England's past World Cup ratings:
::*1950: '''8th'''
::*1954: '''6th'''
::*1958: 11th
::*1962: '''8th'''
::*1966: 1st
::*1970: '''8th'''
::*1974: not qualified
::*1978: not qualified
::*1982: '''6th'''
::*1986: '''8th'''
::*1990: '''4th'''
::*1994: not qualified
::*1998: 9th
::*2002: '''6th'''
::*2006: '''7th'''
::*2010: 13th
::Whenever England qualified for a World Cup, it ended up in the Top 16. And I highlighted (in bold) the times in which England made it at least into the quarterfinals. Fallen to pathetically weak levels? During the last three World Cups, England twice had one of the best eight teams on the planet. Or are you claiming that there was a sudden atheism spike between 2006 and 2010?
::Also, the FIFA World Rankings currently rank England as #7, and the [http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtools/compareteams.html#g=m&t1=ENG&t2=ENG&t3=ENG&t4=ENG&dRange=4&fm=8&fy=1993&tm=11&ty=2011 trend there] isn't exactly indicating growing failure.
::So let's do this right. What are your sources for the claim that "atheism has grown in Britain"? How much during what time period? And then we can see how that compares to the the World Cup and the World Ranking.
::And you claim that atheism causes underachievement, but completely fail to address how the atheism in other countries somehow isn't causing underachievement there. You can't make a claim and then only consider a single country with "high" levels of atheism. How do you explain that the best three teams during the last World Cup have high atheism rates? Why aren't highly religious countries doing better?
::Sorry, but I don't see this going anywhere. You considered only a single data point (the performance of a single team during a single World Cup) to make a claim that doesn't seem to fit the moment you expand the scope at all. You called a single team's performance during a single event correctly, but that doesn't make your reasoning right. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 20:32, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Earthquakes ==

I'm surprised that this is ''still'' doing its rounds: It's wrong.

I don't even have to make a longwinded speech; just look at [[Talk:Main Page/Archive index/102#Severe_earthquakes_double_every_40_years.3F|this]] discussion and also at [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth#Major_earthquakes_are_doubling_every_40_years.3F|this]] one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:13, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Jon Stewart Curse ==
Since the "prediction" was made, Stewart hasn't actually been in any movies. Hosting the Academy Awards was not movie acting. If you want to count "has appeared in front of a camera" as movie acting, then The Daily Show also counts, and it does [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394561/The-force-Jon-Stewart-Daily-Shows-ratings-higher-FOX-News.html very] well. In addition, this prediction was originally made by somebody who was banned as a vandal. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:12, 27 November 2011 (EST)

==What is the point of this article ?==
It just look like boasting. And I shall remind you that ''"As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil."'' - James 4:16 --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:10, 8 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Mystery:Why Do Atheists Dislike Underdogs?

2012-02-09T03:59:20Z

PhilipN: Here is what you asked my friend !

Uhh quick question, aren't Atheists in competition with Christians to rule the United States... But there so many more Christians than Atheists? Are Atheists the underdogs in that competition? [[User:Curiousity|Curiousity]] 20:56, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:There isn't any competition for what religions to "rule" the US. Christianity and Atheism are just at a minor, petty feud with each other. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:47, 6 February 2012 (EST)
== Britain's hatred of the underdog ==

Since when? --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:23, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:I see that Andy has seen fit to remove the fact tags that I inserted seeking references for the bizarre assertions that he makes about the British character. No explanation was given for the removal. No surprises there I guess. I will await an explanation or a reference. If neither are forthcoming I will reinsert the fact tags. At that point I assume I will be blocked and reverted and any offending evidence will be burned. As an underdog on this site I am only too aware of the irony. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:36, 6 February 2012 (EST)

::John, Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge. Please research the issue and add references if you think it is really necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:38, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::If it's common knowledge you should be able to back it up easily enough. What about Americans love of the Yankees? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:46, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:::Is it really common knowledge ? I was really enthusiastic about this encyclopedia but I am starting to see its limits...--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:45, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::::[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2293974/Top-10-FA-Cup-upsets.html Here] is a source showing a British love for sporting underdogs, and let's not forget [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9whxWNI7bE Susan Boyle.] [[User:IvanC|IvanC]] 08:32, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::[http://www.bharatbhasha.net/entertainment.php/330808 Here] is an entire article on the subject. [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/beastliness-foetal-attraction-and-britains-love-of-the-underdog-1234349.html Here] is an article which references the British love of the underdog quite a lot. [http://www.webstercontent.com/articles/163541/1/Underdog-Spirit--the-UKs-Obsession-With-the-Underdog/Page1.html Here] is another. Don't you think that it is time to delete that part of the "article?" [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 18:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

The claim that the British hate underdogs is easily one of the worst statements to come from conservapedia. If anything, Britain is probably the MOST supportive of underdogs. Take football (the good kind) for example. The English football league system is enormous, possibly the biggest in the world, going down 23-24 tiers. Even the lowest of these clubs gain support. How much more "underdog" can you get? I also have two atheist friends (at least they tell me their atheists), one of whom supports Blackburn Rovers, who are going through a torrid time at the moment, currently near the bottom of the table, and having just lost 7-1 to Arsenal, yet he still backs them fully.

After such a heavy counter to your statements by many of the posters here, are you going to give us some evidence for your claims? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 23:40, 7 February 2012 (GMT)

==Weak argumentation==
I am not an atheist but I believe your arguments can be countered easily. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:32, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== Survival of the fittest ==

1. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is not a lifestyle choice. It is a biological theory. Just because evolutionary scientists accept the theory does not mean that they promote it as a way to live in human society.

2. Survival of the fittest (natural selection) is also accepted by creationists. Why then does the author of this "mystery" article point the finger at atheists alone?

--[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 21:59, 6 February 2012 (EST)

== IQ and Atheism ==

If atheists have an above-average IQ, doesn't that mean that non-atheists, i.e. religious folks, have a below average IQ? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:13, 6 February 2012 (EST)

:That sort of simplistic argument appeals to potential atheists. But upon closer look it suggests that atheism is less appealing the smarter one is, above around 105 in IQ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Justin, as far as the issue of IQ and atheism, I wanted to help you out and point out that you misspelled the word atheism. :) I bet if you worked on your spelling and vocabulary that your IQ would go up. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 01:51, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:::Okay, I guess I'm missing something. I thought that the average [[IQ]] was 100, but our article doesn't mention that so maybe I'm mistaken. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient Wikipedia agrees], but the statement isn't referenced. Is that not the case? Because if it is, and if we can divide everyone into two groups (atheists and non-atheists) then if one group has an above average IQ (atheists), the other must necessarily have a below average IQ (as a group, though obviously individual IQs would run the gamut). Or am I just misunderstanding the claim being made? Conservative, thanks. For whatever reason I didn't get the little red squiggles in the "Subject/headline" field and I've always had a problem with the i before e rule (which oddly doesn't apply here). Thankfully, technology is (usually) around to save me. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 03:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Faith and hope ==

Atheism is not a denial of faith or hope. It is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. No more. No less. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 23:42, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Wasn't "hope" a central pillar of the election campaign of a certain B. Hussein Obama? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:44, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:Well, atheism does technically lack faith in terms of worship. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 23:51, 6 February 2012 (EST)
::Yeah, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. "I don't believe in God, therefore the Giants cannot beat the Packers"? Doesn't work logically. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 23:54, 6 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree there. The argument presented especially fails when considering people who have a team nearby playing in sports. Regardless of who is favored to win, sports fans that have local teams playing will probably cheer for them. Just because atheists don't believe in God doesn't mean that they don't believe in anything. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 00:06, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::What I meant was that atheism says nothing about either faith or hope ''per se''. An atheist can have faith in all manner of things other than gods. And they can certainly have hope. --[[User:JohnSpheniscidae|JohnSpheniscidae]] 00:12, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Do Atheists dislike underdogs? ==

Whilst I recognise that this is Andy's website, and he is free to write about whatever mystery he is unable to answer; I feel that someone must point out that there appears no reason at all to suspect that atheists dislike underdogs. Certainly Andy has not given one other than "common knowledge". Well, the knowledge cannot be all that common because I have never heard of it.

However my objection goes further than simply one of insufficient evidence; I simply don't think the claim is true. I was at a major rugby 7's tournament in the weekend in NZ, obviously one of the most atheistic countries in the world, and in an event with excesses of drinking, incivility and lewdness (all atheistic traits as I'm sure we can agree). I can assure everybody that apart from when NZ was involved '''without exception''' the teams that got the most support were always the lesser team or underdog. I have witnessed this trait in sporting crowds all throughout the world, from South America to Australia to the UK - whenever there is no local team playing crowds invariably support the underdog.
I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently, and this essay does not provide assistance. I hope we can have a sensible discussion about this idea. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 00:15, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You say, "I don't see any reason at all to think that atheists see things differently." I would be astounded if two groups of people, atheists and Christians, who have fundamentally opposite view of reality, saw things identically. It would be like saying a color-blinded person saw reality exactly the same as someone with perfect color perception. Surely they don't.

:As to New Zealand, atheism is not nearly as high there as in European nations, including Britain. [http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html] Also, fan conduct at a stadium is probably not a representative sample.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::On your first point, I would agree that there are many things that atheists and Christians will not see identically; however I don't know why support or otherwise for underdogs would be one of them. In any case you have not offered any evidence that they see this particular thing differently - it appears you have simply assumed it. I don't think it is inappropriate to ask for some form of positive evidence.
::Your next points, are valid, but they are only valid in a rebuttal sense. They do nothing to provide support for your thesis that atheists and Christians differ in their support for underdogs. I would say that as for NZ it has been 15 years since we have had a theist of any variety as Prime Minister (and standards have slipped markedly in that time!)
::Let me approach this in a different way. When did you first know that atheists don't support underdogs in the same way as Christians? Was it in an article you read, or something someone told you? Or was it something you realised for yourself after noticing a general trend? Perhaps if we work out why you think its true we might be able to gather some evidence for it -positive or negative. I have an open mind on this, but we do need to see some form of evidence. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:38, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::Andy - fan conduct at a stadium is what brought this discussion about, is it not? You wrote this article to illustrate your own point about atheist fans at the Superbowl. Please tell me, how do we tell when "fan conduct is ... relative" and when it is not? [[User:Bobson|Bobson]] 07:56, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::They might not be as atheistic as the UK, but they are more atheistic than the USA, so it still contradicts your point that the more atheists there are, the less they root for the underdog. I'm still waiting for even a shred of evidence here. You state "The lack of cheering by atheists for the upset victory by the Giants in the Super Bowl...", I'm just wondering where you got your facts there. Do you observe it yourself? How could you know who was an atheist and who wasn't? Did you read some statistic somewhere? Where? So far it appears you're using a circular argument: atheists didn't rot for the underdog. How do i know this? Atheists never root for the underdog. Evidence? Well, look at the Super Bowl! Also, keep in mind the Giants weren't even much of an underdog, the Patriots were favored only by about 3 points. They were the real underdog 4 years ago. If you really wanted to make your point here, you should have gone with Tebow, as he was a real underdog who a lot of Christians rooted for. He's still one atypical example, and the reason a lot people who didn't like him is because they thought he was overhyped, getting much more attention than many better players, some even on his own team. He really isn't a very good quarterback, at least not yet. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 10:05, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Is this serious? ==
If this page had not been added by Aschlafly I would propose speedy deletion as obvious parody. To suggest that people in the UK do not support the underdog shows a lamentable lack of knowledge of the British and of UK culture in general. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 03:16, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==''Britain's attitude against the underdog is common knowledge''==

Aschlafly, you claim that the British don't favor the underdog. OTOH, there seems to be a fine tradition in Great Britain to stand up for the ''little man'' - and the bookies don't complain that no one is ever betting on the outsider.

I don't recall that Hollywood changed ''Karate Kid'' or ''Rocky'' to please the British market. Nevertheless they were successful over there, more successful than ''Apollo Creed - the movie'' could ever have been.

The whole ''mystery'' seems to be made up! In fact, the root seems to be the following reasoning:

*Aschlafly doesn't like atheists.
*Aschlafly likes underdogs (with the possible exception of [[North Korea]]).
*Therfeore atheists don't like underdogs.

For those who think ''wait, that isn't fallacious enough for me'', another gem is thrown in:

*Stalin was an atheist.
*Stalin '''''probably''''' didn't like underdogs-
*Therefore atheists don't like underdogs.

Aschlafly, obviously you can't cave in in front of the many critics above: the more critics there are, the more wrong they have to be, as you become an underdog yourself.

Unfortunately, sometimes the underdog fights for the wrong side.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:18, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:In the USA atheists are the underdog. Do true American Christians therefore root for them? Anyway, one of administrator Karajou's rules does apply here: "... do the research when you write an article. I’ll have more respect for you if you hit the books and do a detailed article then [sic] if you simply put in one or two sentences...". [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:35, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Also, on the international stage the USA are probably the most non-underdog nation in the world. Do Americans root against the USA when their Olympic basketball team plays Slovenia? Clearly there are many cases in which they are the underdog (e.g. World Cup), but we are still the overall favorites in international competition, having won 2549 medals in Olympic games (more than twice our nearest competitor). Are Americans more likely to root for Barbados, who have only ever won a single bronze? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 09:52, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== Who do atheists root for? ==

I did a little research, and found some circumstantial evidence that suggests that a slightly higher proportion of those rooting for the Patriots may have been atheists. This assumes people usually root for the home team. Of course, this is certainly not always the case, and many New Yorkers hate the Yankees specifically because they are the antithesis of the underdog, and rooting for them is seen as rooting for WalMart or Ticketmaster. In any case, we assumethe New England states are the most likely to root for the Patriots, and [http://www.gallup.com/poll/114022/State-States-Importance-Religion.aspx according to this], the 6 New England states are among the top 10 least religious in the country. The other most unreligious geographic area is the Pacific Northwest. However, these states are the ones most likely to support the Seahawks, who most certainly ''are'' underdogs. The most religious area is, unsurprisingly, the South, where the Falcons, Cowboys, Titans, Panthers, and Texans are going to be the most popular (the Bucs, Dolphins, and Jags, while technically southern, are probably going to be less popular outside of Florida, and the Jags have little fanbase at all). Some of those teams are perennial underdogs, others not so much, depending on each season and who they're playing. So it seems that statistically, it is likely that a slightly higher proportion of NE fans may have been atheists than NY fans, if only because New England has a slightly higher rate of non-religiousness than NY. New York, [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703453804575479961782758620.html having more fans overall] than the Patriots, still might have had more atheists rooting for them. There's really no way of knowing at this point. Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with atheists supporting underdogs or not. They, like anyone else, probably root for the home team more, and in this one case, the "atheist home team" was the favorite. The truth is, should, heaven forbid, Tom Brady break his back in a car accident today, and never play football again, the Patriots would immediately be labelled underdogs in the 2012 season, but those New Englanders, atheists and all, would keep rooting for them, because they'd still be the home team.

Also, the Packers were underdogs for years, but after winning the Super Bowl last year, they weren't the underdog in a single game they played. And after last year's win they became the country's most popular team, [http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-nfl-teams-2011-12#1-green-bay-packers-10 according to this site (other give different results)]. This sort of contradicts the statement that America loves underdogs. If they did, the Packers would be unpopular, and the Seahawks (perhaps currently the most atheistic team in the league) might be somewhere on that top 10 list. [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 11:08, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Citation Needed==
Hi Mr Schlafly, I noticed that you removed the "citation needed" I added on this page. Is it because a "Mystery" page is considered to be an essay and therefore does not need as much reference ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 7 February 2012 (EST)

:You added numerous citation tags. If you feel references are needed for those points, then please take a look for them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:36, 7 February 2012 (EST)

::Yes, I do feel references are needed. Unfortunately, I am not able to add references because I believe there is no references backing your claims. Also, I believe it is up to you to provide references when you add some disputable information. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 16:01, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::I agree. I've been looking for anything indicating that Brits as a rule disfavor underdogs more than anyone else, as well as the fact that atheists were against the Giants in the Super Bowl. In fact, I looked for anything indicating trends of sports favorite among atheists and came up with basically nothing. I found a few discussion groups on atheist websites about some teams here and there, but they were far too few to indicate any sort of overall trend (one of the few NFL teams mentioned by name was the Bills, a classic underdog). Are there any sources for anything in this article? [[User:DaveE|DaveE]] 16:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:: No, there is not. Citations are not needed for claims that fit the worldview of Aschlafly or the senior sysops. See [[Homosexuality]] and [[Barack Obama]] for reference. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 17:47, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Rachel, you are being a deceitful liberal as far as one of your claims. The [[Homosexuality]] article has over 300 footnotes plus I did note that your claim as far as that article lacked support and specifics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:25, 7 February 2012 (EST)

== UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries plus ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs ==

UK has worse social mobility than most other developed countries - including the United States. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility] It would seem being an underdog in the UK is more difficult than in many other developed nations. [[Social Darwinism]] started in Britain too. Plus, ungodly UK citizens and poodles and other underdogs: [[Bestiality and Britain]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:48, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::Social mobility has not improved in Britain for 30 years.[http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2007/SocialMobilityDec07.aspx] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:31, 7 February 2012 (EST)
::::Hum, apparently social mobility is pretty good in atheist countries like Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden ! --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:49, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, social mobility in the US is not good, it is even worse that it is in atheistic France.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:54, 7 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::PhilipN, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results. Who are the poor in the United States? What are the causes of their poverty? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:25, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::First, the degree of equality of opportunity is not the same thing as equal results in UK neither. Second, you did not answer to my first objection that atheistic Denmark and Norway have the best social mobility. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 00:36, 8 February 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, I already discussed with you the benefits of having a cultural legacy of Protestantism and this would apply to both Denmark and Norway (see: [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#.22Clearly.2C_the_.22secular.22_in_secular_Europe_is_not_working_out_well_in_many_countries.22 Protestant cultural legacy]). Plus, Norway has significant oil revenues and a cultural legacy in the somewhat recent past of hard working fisherman and farmers. I certainly have nothing against the Norweigans and just a few weeks ago I met a very nice Norweigan Christian. In Europe, people from Germany and Scandanavian countries, which have a cultural legacy of Protestantism (and thus the Protestant work ethic), are often hard workers. As far as America, I again suggest you look at the most common causes of poverty. Perhaps, you will find there is still a lot of opportunity in America. At the same time, I am a big believer in blooming where you are planted. I know a man in one of the poorest countries in Africa who had enough gumption to be successful in his country (he told me college was free in his country when he attended at least, but many people did not have enough drive to attend due to their pessimistic attitude). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Addendum: Give the higher degree of social stratification of British society and the lack of social mobility in Britain compared to other Western nations, I would be hard pressed to say they are a society that historically roots for the underdog compared to other Western societies. In 1975, Helmut Schmidt wrote of Britain: “If one asks oneself what are the true reasons for the differentiated development of societies and economies between the British and most ones on the Continent, I think it has something to do with the fact that British society, much more than the Scandinavian, German, Austrian, and Dutch societies, is characterized by a class-struggle type of society. This is true for both sides of the upper class as well as for the working classes. I think that the way in which organized Labour on the one hand and industrial management on the other had dealt with their problems is outmoded.”[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:41, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Good reference: a 37 year old quote from a German socialist. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 09:35, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Sorry, but what ON EARTH has any of the above got to do with whether the British support the underdog or not? Absolutely nothing. The fact is that the British are known world wide for 'supporting the underdog' and this 'article' is a joke. As I suggested earlier, if anyone other than Aschlafly had written it it would already have been deleted as parody and the author blocked. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:43, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Conservative, you are being a deceitful liberal by trying to pass this 2 year old report from a French think tank off as convincing evidence. Be careful, I might have to call Transitional Services on you. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 08:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::Davidspencer, are you related to [[Herbert Spencer]]? In case you are not aware, Herbert Spencer was a British Social Darwinist. Put that in your British social stratified society and smoke it! :) By the way, unlike the British, the countries of France, Germany and the United States no longer have Kings and Queens. The American revolutionaries said, "We have no king, but King Jesus!" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:48, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::Not that I know of. Are you?
:::::I asked what this section had to do with the attitude of the British towards underdogs, you replied with a non-answer about someone who died over 100 years ago. Can you please try to stay roughly on topic when replying? Davidspencer 10:53, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::Would that be the same British queen who's also the head of the state religion? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 10:52, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::GeorgeLi, who said I was ever for state religions? I am on record for stating that atheism is a religion and the pseudoscience of Darwinism is a promotion of the atheist religion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::::But the queen isn't anything to do with the "atheist religion," is she? She's head of the Anglican Church. Why do you keep making irrelevant comments? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Davidspencer, one last thing, unlike Britain, the countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden never had feudalism. :) 10:56, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Yes they did.<ref>http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/GeogHist/histories/history/hiscountries/D/denmark.html</ref><ref>http://www.collegetermpapers.com/TermPapers/Geography/Denmark.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/157748/Denmark/33870/Medieval-Denmark</ref><ref>http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/swe12501397.html</ref> --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:Believe it or not I am probably more aware and more knowledgeable than you are of British and European history. What does fuedalism and the lack of it in extremely socialistic European countries have to do with the support of the British for the underdog? [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:00, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::Nothing, of course. It's just a case of a couple of people who sadly won't admit they're wrong. Best to just drop it and go back to editing the worthwhile articles. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 11:02, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::True, I do not want to be 90/10'd for pointing out the blindingly obvious. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 11:05, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::::Davidspencer, unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area. :) Your comment further illustrates that you no

doubt come from a higher than average socially stratified society with lower than average socially mobility in the Western World and feel the need to needlessly elevate yourself! :) By the way, consider reading Luke 14:7. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:12, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::::"...unlike you, I don't feel the urge to brag about my supposed superiority of knowledge in a given subject area." Wow...
:::::::This coming from the user who talks like he knows the UK better than people who actually live there and ridicules those who disagree. User:Conservative, you are not as smart as you think you are. Just because you found a quote about the relevant subject by one person who might agree with you if interpreted a certain way, doesn't make you automatically the most knowledgable person on the subject. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 16:46, 8 February 2012 (GMT)

User Conservative: you make some interesting points about the cultural legacy of protestantism in Scandinavia but why doesn't the same apply to the UK? As well as being historically a centre of protestant and non-conformist thought, protestantism and non-conformism were central to the English Revolution, the colonisation of the New World, liberal humanism (eg the work of Adam Smith), the first stock and insurance markets, the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire. It still remains in Britain's cultural DNA. In fact, the UK today is far more conservative than the social democratic Scandinavian countries, both socially and economically. So why doesn't your Gladwellesque reasoning apply here? [[User:Rafael|Rafael]] 14:09, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::RedGoliath, who said that I/we don't live in the UK? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::I doubt someone with such a strong interest in American politics wouldn't be living in the US. [[User:LouW|LouW]] 18:59, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::LouW, [[Vox Day]] comments on the United States frequently and he lives in Italy and hasn't lived in the United States in a decade if memory serves. Second, I/we think it is fair to say that I have commented on world events more frequently than other Admins on the front page (Europe, Asia, etc.). Third, if the United States has Greece like economic problems, it is such a big economy it would no doubt bring down the rest of the world. When the Roman Empire collapsed for example, it causes problems elsewhere. Fourth, most of my/our content at Conservapedia deals with topics that many people are interested in worldwide and my/our content helps Conservapedia have more of a global audience. Fourth, we live in a very mobile society today plus English is spoken in many places. Lastly, you don't know if I/we are many people or one. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:19, 8 February 2012 (EST)
Rafael, I did think of that. Although having the mindset of working hard helps a "underdog" become a bigger dog, I also think a society not having unnecessary barriers in the way helps too which Gladwell does talk about in his book. I also know that England has a history of social stratification compared to other countries. Here is what a Christian site says about England: “In the 1800s England had one hundred sixty crimes punishable by hanging, including ones as trivial as stealing a loaf of bread.” “I thought of this when I was reading in the Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn of the lengthy prison sentences that Soviet children received for stealing when they were hungry.”[http://bible.org/seriespage/lamp-loaves-and-loudmouth-leviticus-24] The Bible has restitution for stealing.

Also, there is no doubt that atheists are more likely historically to promote social Darwinism and England was at the forefront of social Darwinism.

Since people tend to be their own worst enemies, I do think an underdog's biggest asset is not having a bad mindset and having good habits and a good society should promote an industrious/virtuous mindset. In the Western World, although there are certainly young ladies who have husband's cheat on them, there are also plenty who have sex before marriage and wind up being single mothers with unruly kids. I also think feminism and selfish males increase divorce rates which causes single motherhood. Single motherhood can be a big factor when it comes to poverty and less social mobility in a society.

Here are some relevant statistics about the above as far as the United States:

In terms of household structure, households headed by women are far more likely to be poor than
other types of households. There are 4.1 million female-headed families in poverty and 2.9
million married-couple families in poverty; in total over 14.4 million households are headed by
women.73 Half of all women will potentially experience single motherhood at some point in
their lifetimes; 80 percent of black women and 45 percent of white women will become family
heads at some time during their childbearing years.74 In 2000, the distribution of female-headed
household types with children was as follows: 12 percent were headed by a woman with a
cohabitating male partner, 14.3 percent were headed by a grandmother, and 73.8 percent by a
single mother. A larger share of the households headed by a grandmother is black.75
Poverty rates in female-headed households are typically 3 to 4 times as high as those for the
overall population.76 Individuals in households that become headed by a female are extremely
likely to enter into poverty:

• When a two-adult household becomes a female-headed household, 20.1 percent entered
poverty.77
• The transition to a female-headed family accounts for 59 percent of the poverty
beginnings for female heads with children: 38 percent of these poverty spell
beginnings result from a marital breakup and 21 percent result from what is most likely
unmarried motherhood.78
• Persons in households that have been female-headed for 2 or more years are more likely
enter poverty than persons in two-adult and single male-headed households.79
• More than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households than 6 out of 10 children who have experienced persistent or long-term
poverty have spent time in single parent families.80
Many female-headed households begin with a divorce. Nationally, over 13 million women are
divorced, and 18.4 percent of them are living in poverty.81 Divorce erodes the economic wellbeing
of custodial parents and their children. There is considerable evidence that upon divorce
women and children experience substantial financial declines, with income dropping;
divorced men’s relative income, on the other hand, remains stable or even increases.82 Median
household income for custodial parent households declines 40 percent, on average, during
the 5 years following divorce. Moreover, the decline in economic well-being held for poorly
educated and highly educated couples alike.83 Of those experiencing a new marital break-up, 23
percent become poor with the month that the break-up occurs (31% for female-headed families,
19% for families with elderly members).84 A father leaving the family increases the likelihood
that families with children will be poor: in one study the percent of families below poverty
increased by ten percentage points (about a 46% increase in the total number of families).85
13
Female-headed households’ status is closely tied to poverty because single parent families
typically have just one potential earner and are less likely than married parents to have a fulltime
worker. When there is only one adult earner in the household, fewer hours are worked and
fewer hours are available to be worked due to care giving responsibilities. Though employment
rates are high for single women with children (almost 80% work)86, mothers who never
marry are 70 percent less likely to be working full time compared to women who have only
marital births.87 If there is not another earner in the household, grandmother-headed households
with children have extremely high odds of experiencing poverty, significantly higher (40%) than
those headed by a single mother.88[http://www.heartlandalliance.org/whatwedo/advocacy/reports/causes-of-poverty.pdf]

Martin Seligman wrote about [http://psychology.about.com/od/lindex/f/earned-helplessness.htm "learned helplessness"] and I do think that liberal's constant promotion of victimhood promotes "learned helpflessness" and often central government controlled social programs do also. After all is said and done, I think "America's war on poverty" has been a colossal failure as it rewards bad habits and causes a dependent mindset. I think when families and local communities were in charge of charity, there was more accountability and less fostering of a dependency and a victimhood mindset. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:26, 8 February 2012 (EST)

:Wow, look at all those words! I didn't read any of them, but I can only assume [[User:Conservative]] won the argument. --[[User:BaileyJ|BaileyJ]] 19:07, 8 February 2012 (EST)

::I believe you forgot the "ir" before relevant. As far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with the discussed matter... There is no more reason to say that religion is the reason why Uk has worse social mobility than the US than to say that religion is the reason why Sweden has better social mobility than the US. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:16, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, you can continue to assert that religion and religious cultural legacies do not affect social mobility and industriousness, but you have failed to provide data to support this notion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:58, 8 February 2012 (EST)
::::I never said that cultural legacies has no effect on social mobility but I maintain that religion is irrelevant here. I have some nice data for you:
::::* [[United Kingdom]] : 19% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf</ref> and a bad social mobility (0.5)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[United States]] : 9% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/pdf/wtwtogod.pdf</ref> and a bad social mobility (~0.47)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Denmark]] : 43-80% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and a very good social mobility (~0.15)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Sweden]] : 46-85% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and an average social mobility (~0.28)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::* [[Australia]] : 24-25% of atheists/agnostics<ref>http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html</ref> and a very good social mobility (~0.18)<ref>http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf</ref>
::::--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:59, 8 February 2012 (EST)
:::::User: BaileyJ, I realize that liberals are often allergic to data and the real world, nevertheless Britain having a history of societal stratification compared to many Western nations is still real. In addition, irresponsible centrally controlled social programs creating dependency and less social mobility is also still real. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:03, 8 February 2012 (EST)

== Atheists and surprises ==

"The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that there will be any surprises like Hell. Victory by an underdog is an unexpected surprise, which is unsettling for atheists who insist that there must not be any big surprises in an afterlife."

Not correct. Hell would indeed be a surprise to atheists (as the non-existence of Heaven would be to theists, for that matter; they deny the possibility of that surprise), but that relates to an afterlife. Underdogs winning is a surprise in this life, and there is no evidence whatsoever to believe that atheists are more prone than theists to deny the possibility of surprises in this life. Furthermore "The belief system of an atheist clings a denial that…" is not proper English and "unexpected surprise" is redundant. It is the very essence of surprises to be unexpected.

Besides, I wonder how this article stacks up to the following Conservapedia rules:

Conservapedia commandment no 1: ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable.

Conservapedia guideline about attribution: ''There's a difference between stating flatly that "the earth is 6,000 years old" and reporting that "Young Earth creationists say that the earth is 6,000 years old." […] Simply by attributing a statement to the person who said it, we can turn bias into fact. That is, we convert a statement about something from a biased assertion into an attribution. We don't say "X". We say that "A said X." […] Thus, a good article "describes" - it does not "prescribe".'' [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 09:18, 8 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>

110th United States Congress

2012-02-09T00:32:20Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

[[Image:102.gif|350px|right|thumb|The Zogby International Poll reported a "paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July." <ref>[http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1359 Reuters/Zogby Poll], Septermber 19, 2007.</ref>]]
The [[Democratic party]] which gained control of the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] in the 2006 Congressional midterm elections had promised major reforms within the first 100 hours. One reform in particular was lobbying and ethics reform--a key plank in the fall 2006 campaign. Democrats vowed greater openness in the Congressional Appropriations process, and an end to so-called "[[earmark]]s", an appropriation designated to spend specific money on a specific project in a specific members district, sometimes designating a specific private business concern to whom the money is to be spent with. Several Republican members had been caught up in so-called earmark scandals, trading money for influence, and this was widely accredited as a key reason why the GOP lost control of the House after a dozen years.

==Achievements==

In the first five months of 2007 after the Democratic party took control of Congress, the majority party,

* Reissued a "blank check" to the President on the [[Iraq War]], which allegedly was opposed by 70 percent <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18831132/ The entire government has failed us on Iraq], Keith Olbermann, MSNBC ''Countdown'', May 24, 2007.</ref> in opinion polls and was vociferously opposed by many Congressional candidates in 2006. The bill included an increase in the [[minimum wage]].

* Successfully renamed six post offices, four courthouses, a national park, and one of the buildings housing the Department of Education in Washington. They also extended the lives of two government commissions, reduced the membership of the Red Cross board of governors from 50 to 20, and authorized construction of 541 feet of road on a flood plain in St. Louis County, Missouri.

*Kept the government going with two temporary spending bills, completed one appropriations bill which was vetoed, redesignated five Eastern European countries (Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Georgia and Ukraine) for security aid, and passed a bill on penalties for animal fighting that had passed in the Republican Congress last year.

*Voted to kill lobbying reforms that were part of the 2006 [[Honest Leadership and Open Government Act]] Democratic candidates made a centerpiece of their campaign message in 2006. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/panel-softens-lobbying-bill-provisions-2007-05-17.html Panel softens lobbying bill provisions], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', May 17, 2007.</ref>

*Passed a bill to allow [[federal funding]] of stem cell research on lines of stem cells derived from discarded human embryos created for fertility treatments. The bill caused the first veto of Bush's presidency.

*Passed a bipartisan bill expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program, increasing coverage by 4 million people by 2012. After a Bush veto, Congress passed a second version which was also vetoed by the President.

*Passed the appropriations bill to fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education for 2008. It was vetoed by the President and did not pass an override.

By mid June 2007, Congressional Approval ratings had hit a new low, with only 23% of the American people expressing approval, worse than [[President George W. Bush]] had experienced. <ref>[http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20070617-115222-5077r.htm Democratic Congress shows cracks], By Donald Lambro, ''The Washington Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref> The ''L.A. Times'' reported Congressional Approval ratings were the lowest in a decade--since the [[Bill_Clinton#Impeachment|Clinton Impeachment]] trial. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-pelosi12jun12,1,2398539.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true Approval of Congress lowest in a decade], By Noam N. Levey, ''L.A. Times'', June 12, 2007.</ref>

==Earmark reform==

A House ethics panel is led by a lawmaker who holds the record for taking the most free travel, while another panel member was implicated in the recent flap over the firing of U.S. attorneys. The earmark process by which so-called "pork barrel" projects are doled out to members by June of 2007 saw no major changes. In fact, rules approved the first day in power in January, the ''Associated Press'' reported, where being ignored. Rep. [[David Obey]] of Wisconsin, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, instructed members to withhold "earmark requests" until September.

According to the ''Associated Press'', what Obey did ran counter to new rules Democrats promised that would make spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny. The rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a written explanation describing their requests and a letter certifying that they or their spouse would not make any financial gain from them. The greater transparency was intended to lead to more self-discipline on the part of lawmakers. <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jun03/0,4670,CongressPetProjects,00.html House Keeps Pet Projects From Scrutiny] Andrew Taylor, Associated Press, June 03, 2007.</ref> Two weeks later, a group called Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) reported that after a wave of protest from across the [[political spectrum]], Democrats backed down from plans to keep taxpayers in the dark about tens of billions of dollars in congressionally earmarked spending. CAGW President Tom Schatz said
“Chairman Obey wanted to stay behind closed doors and play ‘God’ with earmarks, but the taxpayers won this battle for transparency and accountability.” <ref>[http://www.cagw.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10818 Obey Lost - Taxpayers Won!], Citizens Against Waste in Government Press Release June 15, 2007.</ref>

The legislative journal, ''The Hill'', reported Sen. [[Carl Levin]] and Sen. [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] were the two top Senatorial [[Pork#Government_Budgets|pork barrel]] reciepients via the earmark process in 2007. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

==Tax increases==
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman [[John Dingell]] of Michigan announced a proposal for a new carbon tax that would increase the gasoline tax by 50 cents. In addition to raising the gasoline tax, Dingell’s new proposal would institute a “double digit” tax on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dingell-to-propose-50-cent-gasoline-tax-increase-2007-07-07.html Dingell to propose 50 cent gasoline tax increase], By Chris Good, ''The Hill'', July 07, 2007.</ref>

The ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'' reported in April House Ways and Means Chairman [[Charlie Rangel]] effectively declared the death of [[Reaganomics]] in America. Democrats have come up with an idea to slow the 17 million middle class Americans subject [[Alternative Minimum Tax]] (AMT). Changes in the AMT rate, and the treatment of dividends and capital gains, still leaves the budget at least $600 billion short of paying for the AMT fix. House Democrats have acknowledged that to close this final gap, they will have to consider raising personal income taxes.

The top AMT rate would increase to 31.5% from 28%. Democratic tax experts also recommend eliminating the lower rate for capital gains and dividends for those subject to the AMT. This would raise the capital gains tax rate to about 31% from its present 15% rate. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117789342653886488-search.html?KEYWORDS=tax&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month $650 Billion Tax Hike,] Stephen Moore, Op-Ed, ''The Wall Street Journal'', 4/30/07.</ref>

== Other Congresses ==
* Next: [[111th United States Congress]]
* Previous: [[109th United States Congress]]
* See also: [[103rd United States Congress]]
* [[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.therealdemocratstory.com/ The Real Democrat Story], Open the File on the Freshmen Democrats.
*[http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/23/rep-patrick-mchenry-earmark-crusader/ Rep. Patrick McHenry: Earmark Crusader: Updated], By: Nicole Belle on Saturday, June 23rd, 2007.

[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:United States]]
[[Category:Statesmen]]
[[Category:110th United States Congress]]

1988 Presidential Election

2012-02-09T00:32:17Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

#REDIRECT [[United States presidential election, 1988]]

2001 NFL Draft

2012-02-09T00:32:16Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

The '''2001 National Football League Draft''' was held in [[New York City]] on April 21-22, 2001.

== Draft Rounds ==
=== First Round ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Pick
! Team
! Player
! Pos
! College
! Notes
|-
|1
|[[Atlanta Falcons]]
|[[Michael Vick]]
|QB
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|2
|[[Arizona Cardinals]]
|[[Leonard Davis]]
|OT
|[[University of Texas]]
|
|-
|3
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Gerard Warren]]
|DT
|[[University of Florida]]
|
|-
|4
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[Justin Smith]]
|DE
|[[University of Missouri]]
|
|-
|5
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[LaDainian Tomlinson]]
|RB
|[[Texas Christian]]
|
|-
|6
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Richard Seymour]]
|DT
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|7
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Andre Carter ]]
|DE
|[[University of California ]]
|
|-
|8
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|[[David Terrell]]
|WR
|[[University of Michigan]]
|
|-
|9
|[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|[[Koren Robinson]]
|WR
|[[North Carolina State]]
|
|-
|10
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Jamal Reynolds]]
|DE
|[[Florida State]]
|
|-
|11
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[Dan Morgan]]
|OLB
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|12
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Damione Lewis]]
|DT
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|13
|[[Jacksonville Jaguars]]
|[[Marcus Stroud]]
|DT
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|14
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Kenyatta Walker]]
|OL
|[[University of Florida]]
|
|-
|15
|[[Washington Redskins]]
|[[Rod Gardner]]
|WR
|[[Clemson University]]
|
|-
|16
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Santana Moss]]
|WR
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|17
|[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|[[Steve Hutchinson ]]
|G
|[[University of Michigan]]
|
|-
|18
|[[Detroit Lions]]
|[[Jeff Backus]]
|T
|[[University of Michigan]]
|
|-
|19
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Casey Hampton]]
|NT
|[[University of Texas]]
|
|-
|20
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Adam Archuleta ]]
|SS
|[[University of Arizona State]]
|
|-
|21
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Nate Clements]]
|CB
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|22
|[[New York Giants]]
|[[Will Allen]]
|CB
|[[University of Syracuse]]
|
|-
|23
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Deuce McAllister ]]
|RB
|[[University of Mississippi]]
|
|-
|24
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|[[Willie Middlebrooks]]
|CB
|[[University of Minnesota]]
|
|-
|25
|[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[Freddie Mitchell ]]
|WR
|[[UCLA]]
|-
|26
|[[Miami Dolphins]]
|[[Jamar Fletcher]]
|DB
|[[University of Wisconsin]]
|
|-
|27
|[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|[[Michael Bennett]]
|RB
|[[University of Wisconsin]]
|
|-
|28
|[[Oakland Raiders]]
|[[Derrick Gibson]]
|DB
|[[Florida State University]]
|
|-
|29
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Ryan Pickett ]]
|DT
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|30
|[[Indianapolis Colts]]
|[[Reggie Wayne]]
|WR
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|31
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Todd Heap ]]
|TE
|[[University of Arizona State]]
|
|-

{|

==External Links==
*[http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?season=2001 NFL.com - Draft History: Full Draft]
*[http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/2001/draft/ Sports Illustrated - 2001 NFL Draft]
*[http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6736248 Fox Sports - Revisiting the 2001 NFL Draft]
{{NFLDraft}}
[[Category:National Football League]]

16th Amendment to the United States Constitution

2012-02-09T00:32:16Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Jpatt

#REDIRECT [[Sixteenth Amendment]]

12 tribes of Israel

2012-02-09T00:32:10Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

#redirect [[Twelve Tribes of Israel]]

1500 BC

2012-02-09T00:32:10Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

[[Aryans]]

[[David]]

[[Dorians]]

[[Israel]]

[[Mandate of Heaven]]

[[Mycenaean Civilization]]

[[Nebuchadnezzar I]]

[[Olmec]]

[[Saul]]

[[Thutmos III]]

[[Zhou dynasty]]

[[Category:Years]]

104th United States Congress

2012-02-09T00:32:10Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

The '''104th United States Congress''' was the sessions of Congress that occurred from January 3, 1995 to January 3, 1997. Due to the [[Contract with America]] and dissatisfaction with Democratic policies, the elections of 1994 finally saw an increase in the [[Republican]] majority of [[Congress]]. House speaker [[Newt Gingrich]] declared Congress "under new management" during this Congress. This Congress was able to pass much excellent conservative pro-American legislation despite [[liberal]] and impeached president [[Bill Clinton]] being in office. Coincidentally, the ushering in of a Republican dominated Congress exactly coincided with the success of the US economy, a strong economy that lasted until the [[Democrats]] surprisingly won power back in 2006. Not surprisingly, the economy then dropped sharply, as did Congressional opinion polls.

The 104th Congress was the most productive in nearly 50 years. President [[Bill Clinton]], fearing defeat in 1996, signed many good bills into law. The accomplishments of the 104th Congress included:

*[[DOMA]]
*Welfare reform
*Prisoner litigation reform
*the [[Solomon Amendment]]

(add to list)

[[Category:United States Congress]]

"Must pass" bill

2012-02-09T00:32:09Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Jpatt

#REDIRECT [["Must pass" Bill]]

12(b)(6)

2012-02-09T00:32:09Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Jpatt

A '''12(b)(6)''', named after the subsection of the [[Federal Rules of Civil Procedure]] on which it is based, is a [[motion]] that is filed by a [[defendant]] in the opening stages of a [[Federal]] [[civil]] case. The motion declares that there is a "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted," or in other words, even assuming the allegations made by the [[plaintiff]] are true, there is no [[legal]] basis for relief.
==References==
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12]

[[Category:Law]]

!

2012-02-09T00:32:08Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by JackParr

in my butt

100 AD

2012-02-09T00:32:08Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Jpatt

[[Barracks Emperors]]

[[Constantine]]

[[Diocletian]]

[[Han Empire]]

[[Manichaeism]]

[[Category:Years]]

2008 Presidential Debates

2012-02-09T00:32:08Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by WesleyS

The '''2008 Presidential Debates''' are the [[Presidential Debates|debates]] that occurred between Presidential candidates in the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. The [[Democrat]], Senator [[Barack Obama]], debated the [[Republican]], Senator [[John McCain]] three times, first in Oxford, [[Mississippi]] on September 26th <ref> http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/mccain_obama_debate/2008/09/26/134940.html </ref> and again in [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee]] on October 7th in a town-hall format. Their last debate was held in Hempstead, [[New York]]. On October 2nd, Obama's running mate, Senator [[Joe Biden]], debated McCain's running mate, [[Sarah Palin]].

==Notes==
<references/>
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2008]]

2006 NFL Draft

2012-02-09T00:32:01Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by DerekE

The '''2006 National Football League Draft''' was held on April 28 - 29 in [[New York City]].
== Draft Rounds ==
=== First Round ===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Pick
! Team
! Player
! Pos
! College
! Notes
|-
|1
|[[Houston Texans]]
|[[Mario Williams]]
|DE
|[[North Carolina State]]
|
|-
|2
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Reggie Bush]]
|RB
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|3
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Vince Young]]
|QB
|[[University of Texas]]
|
|-
|4
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[D'Brickashaw Ferguson]]
|T
|[[University of Virginia]]
|
|-
|5
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[A.J. Hawk]]
|OLB
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|6
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Vernon Davis]]
|TE
|[[University of Maryland]]
|
|-
|7
|[[Oakland Raiders]]
|[[Michael Huff]]
|SS
|[[University of Texas]]
|
|-
|8
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Donte Whitner]]
|SS
|[[Ohio State University ]]
|
|-
|9
|[[Detroit Lions]]
|[[Ernie Sims]]
|OLB
|[[Florida State University ]]
|
|-
|10
|[[Arizona Cardinals]]
|[[Matt Leinart]]
|QB
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|11
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|[[Jay Cutler]]
|QB
|[[Vanderbilt University]]
|
|-
|12
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Haloti Ngata]]
|DT
|[[University of Oregon]]
|
|-
|13
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Kamerion Wimbley]]
|OLB
|[[Florida State University]]
|
|-
|14
|[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[Brodrick Bunkley]]
|DT
|[[Florida State University]]
|
|-
|15
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Tye Hill]]
|CB
|[[Clemson]]
|
|-
|16
|[[Miami Dolphins]]
|[[Jason Allen]]
|FS
|[[University of Tennessee]]
|
|-
|17
|[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|[[Chad Greenway]]
|LB
|[[University of Iowa]]
|
|-
|18
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|[[Bobby Carpenter]]
|ILB
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|19
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[Antonio Cromartie]]
|CB
|[[Florida State University]]
|
|-
|20
|[[Kansas City Chiefs]]
|[[Tamba Hali]]
|DE
|[[Penn State]]
|
|-
|21
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Laurence Maroney]]
|RB
|[[University of Minnesota]]
|
|-
|22
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Manny Lawson]]
|OLB
|[[North Carolina State]]
|
|-
|23
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Davin Joseph]]
|G
|[[University of Oklahoma]]
|
|-
|24
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[Johnathan Joseph]]
|CB
|[[University of South Carolina]]
|
|-
|25
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Santonio Holmes]]
|WR
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|26
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[John McCargo]]
|DT
|[[North Carolina State]]
|-
|27
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[DeAngelo Williams]]
|RB
|[[University of Memphis]]
|
|-
|28
|[[Jacksonville Jaguars]]
|[[Marcedes Lewis]]
|TE
|[[UCLA]]
|
|-
|29
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Nick Mangold]]
|C
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|30
|[[Indianapolis Colts]]
|[[Joseph Addai]]
|RB
|[[Louisiana State University]]
|
|-
|31
|[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|[[Kelly Jennings]]
|CB
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|32
|[[New York Giants]]
|[[Mathias Kiwanuka]]
|DE
|[[Boston College]]
|
|-
{| class="wikitable"
----

=== Second Round ===

|-
! Pick
! Team
! Player
! Pos
! College
! Notes
|-
|33
|[[Houston Texans]]
|[[DeMeco Ryans]]
|MLB
|[[University of Alabama]]
|
|-
|34
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[D'Qwell Jackson]]
|ILB
|[[University of Maryland]]
|
|-
|35
|[[Washington Redskins]]
|[[Rocky McIntosh]]
|LB
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|36
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Chad Jackson]]
|WR
|[[University of Florida]]
|
|-
|37
|[[Atlanta Falcons]]
|[[Jimmy Williams]]
|CB
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|38
|[[Oakland Raiders]]
|[[Thomas Howard]]
|LB
|[[University of Texas-El Paso]]
|
|-
|39
|[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[Winston Justice]]
|T
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|40
|[[Detroit Lions]]
|[[Daniel Bullocks]]
|FS
|[[University of Nebraska]]
|
|-
|41
|[[Arizona Cardinals]]
|[[Deuce Lutui]]
|G
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|42
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|[[Danieal Manning]]
|FS
|[[Abilene Christian]]
|
|-
|43
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Roman Harper]]
|SS
|[[University of Alabama]]
|
|-
|44
|[[New York Giants]]
|[[Sinorice Moss]]
|WR
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|45
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[LenDale White]]
|RB
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|46
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Joe Klopfenstein]]
|TE
|[[University of Colorado]]
|
|-
|47
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Daryn Colledge]]
|T
|[[Boise State]]
|
|-
|48
|[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|[[Cedric Griffin]]
|CB
|[[University of Texas]]
|
|-
|49
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Kellen Clemens]]
|QB
|[[University of Oregon]]
|
|-
|50
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[Marcus McNeill]]
|T
|[[Auburn]]
|
|-
|51
|[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|[[Ryan Cook]]
|T
|[[University of New Mexico]]
|
|-
|52
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Greg Jennings]]
|WR
|[[University of Western Michigan]]
|
|-
|53
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|[[Anthony Fasano]]
|TE
|[[University of Notre Dame]]
|
|-
|54
|[[Kansas City Chiefs]]
|[[Bernard Pollard]]
|SS
|[[Purdue University]]
|
|-
|55
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[Andrew Whitworth]]
|T
|[[Louisiana State University]]
|
|-
|56
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Chris Chester]]
|G
|[[University of Oklahoma]]
|
|-
|57
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|[[Devin Hester]]
|CB
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|58
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[Richard Marshall]]
|CB
|[[Fresno State]]
|-
|59
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Jeremy Trueblood]]
|T
|[[Boston College]]
|
|-
|60
|[[Jacksonville Jaguars]]
|[[Maurice Jones-Drew]]
|RB
|[[UCLA]]
|
|-
|61
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|[[Tony Scheffler]]
|TE
|[[University of Western Michigan]]
|
|-
|62
|[[Indianapolis Colts]]
|[[Tim Jennings]]
|CB
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|63
|[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|[[Darryl Tapp]]
|DE
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|64
|[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|[[Tarvaris Jackson]]
|QB
|[[Alabama State]]
|
|-
{| class="wikitable"

----
=== Third Round ===

|-
! Pick
! Team
! Player
! Pos
! College
! Notes
|-
|65
|[[Houston Texans]]
|[[Charles Spencer]]
|T
|[[University of Pittsburgh]]
|
|-
|66
|[[Houston Texans]]
|[[Eric Winston]]
|T
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|67
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Abdul Hodge]]
|MLB
|[[University of Iowa]]
|
|-
|68
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Claude Wroten]]
|DT
|[[Louisiana State University]]
|
|-
|69
|[[Oakland Raiders]]
|[[Paul McQuistan]]
|G
|[[Weber State]]
|
|-
|70
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Ashton Youboty]]
|CB
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|71
|[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[Chris Gocong]]
|CB
|[[Cal Poly-SLO]]
|
|-
|72
|[[Arizona Cardinals]]
|[[Leonard Pope]]
|TE
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|73
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|[[Dusty Dvoracek]]
|DT
|[[University of Oklahoma]]
|
|-
|74
|[[Detroit Lions]]
|[[Brian Calhoun]]
|RB
|[[University of Wisconsin]]
|
|-
|75
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Jason Spitz]]
|G
|[[University of Louisville]]
|
|-
|76
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Anthony Schlegel]]
|MLB
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|77
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Jon Alston]]
|OLB
|[[Stanford]]
|
|-
|78
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Travis Wilson]]
|WR
|[[University of Oklahoma]]
|
|-
|79
|[[Atlanta Falcons]]
|[[Jerious Norwood]]
|RB
|[[Mississippi State University]]
|
|-
|80
|[[Jacksonville Jaguars]]
|[[Clint Ingram]]
|OLB
|[[University of Oklahoma]]
|
|-
|81
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[Charlie Whitehurst]]
|QB
|[[Clemson]]
|
|-
|82
|[[Miami Dolphins]]
|[[Derek Hagan]]
|WR
|[[Arizona State]]
|
|-
|83
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Anthony Smith]]
|FS
|[[Syracuse University]]
|
|-
|84
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Brandon Williams]]
|WR
|[[University of Wisconsin]]
|
|-
|85
|[[Kansas City Chiefs]]
|[[Brodie Croyle]]
|QB
|[[University of Alabama]]
|
|-
|86
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[David Thomas]]
|TE
|[[University of Texas]]
|
|-
|87
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[David Pittman]]
|CB
|[[Northwestern State University]], [[Louisiana]]
|
|-
|88
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[James Anderson]]
|OLB
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|89
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[Rashad Butler]]
|T
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|90
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Maurice Stovall]]
|WR
|[[University of Notre Dame]]
|-
|91
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[Frostee Rucker]]
|DE
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|92
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|[[Jason Hatcher]]
|DE
|[[Grambling]]
|
|-
|93
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Dominique Byrd]]
|TE
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|94
|[[Indianapolis Colts]]
|[[Freddy Keiaho]]
|OLB
|[[San Diego State]]
|
|-
|95
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Willie Reid]]
|WR
|[[Florida State]]
|
|-
|96
|[[New York Giants]]
|[[Gerris Wilkinson]]
|OLB
|[[Georgia Tech]]
|
|-
|95
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Eric Smith]]
|SS
|[[Michigan State]]
|
|-
{| class="wikitable"
----
=== Forth Round ===

|-
! Pick
! Team
! Player
! Pos
! College
! Notes
|-
|98
|[[Houston Texans]]
|[[Owen Daniels]]
|TE
|[[University of Wisconsin]]
|
|-
|99
|[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[Max Jean-Gilles]]
|G
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|100
|[[San Francisco]]
|[[Michael Robinson]]
|RB
|[[Penn State]]
|
|-
|101
|[[Oakland Raiders]]
|[[Darnell Bing]]
|LB
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|102
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Calvin Lowry]]
|FS
|[[Penn State]]
|
|-
|103
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Brad Smith]]
|WR
|[[University of Missouri]]
|
|-
|104
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Cory Rodgers]]
|WR
|[[Texas Christian]]
|
|-
|105
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Ko Simpson]]
|FS
|[[University of South Carolina]]
|
|-
|106
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Garrett Mills]]
|TE
|[[Tulsa University]]
|
|-
|107
|[[Arizona Cardinals]]
|[[Gabe Watson]]
|NT
|[[University of Michigan]]
|
|-
|108
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Jahri Evans.]]
|G
|[[University of Bloomsburg (Pennsylvania)|University of Bloomsburg]]
|
|-
|109
|[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[Jason Avant]]
|WR
|[[University of Michigan]]
|
|-
|110
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Leon Williams]]
|ILB
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|111
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Demetrius Williams]]
|WR
|[[University of Oregon]]
|
|-
|112
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Isaac Sowells]]
|G
|[[University of Indiana]]
|
|-
|113
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[ Victor Adeyanju]]
|DE
|[[University of Indiana]]
|
|-
|114
|[[Miami Dolphins]]
|[[ Joe Toledo]]
|T
|[[University of Washington]]
|
|-
|115
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Will Blackmon]]
|CB
|[[Boston College]]
|
|-
|116
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Stephen Tulloch]]
|MLB
|[[North Carolina State]]
|
|-
|117
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Leon Washington]]
|RB
|[[Florida State]]
|
|-
|118
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Stephen Gostkowski]]
|K
|[[University of Memphis]]
|
|-
|119
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|[[Brandon Marshall]]
|WR
|[[University of Central Florida]]
|
|-
|120
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|[[Jamar Williams]]
|MLB
|[[Arizona State]]
|
|-
|121
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[Nate Salley]]
|DB
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|122
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Alan Zemaitis]]
|CB
|[[Penn State]]
|
|-
|123
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[Domata Peko]]
|DT
|[[Michigan State]]
|-
|124
|[[New York Giants]]
|[[ Barry Cofield]]
|NT
|[[Northwestern University]]
|
|-
|125
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|[[Skyler Green]]
|WR
|[[Louisiana State University]]
|
|-
|126
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|[[Elvis Dumervil]]
|DE
|[[University of Louisville]]
|
|-
|127
|[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|[[Ray Edwards]]
|DE
|[[Purdue University]]
|
|-
|128
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Rob Sims]]
|G
|[[Ohio State University]]
|
|-
|129
|[[New York Giants]]
|[[Guy Whimper]]
|T
|[[University of East Carolina]]
|
|-
|130
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|[[Domenik Hixon]]
|WR
|[[University of Akron]]
|
|-
|131
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Willie Colon]]
|T
|[[Hofstra University]]
|
|-
|132
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[P.J. Daniels]]
|RB
|[[Georgia Tech]]
|
|-
|133
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Orien Harris]]
|DE
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-

{| class="wikitable"
----
=== Fifth Round ===

|-
! Pick
! Team
! Player
! Pos
! College
! Notes
|-
|134
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Kyle Williams]]
|DT
|[[Louisiana State University]]
|
|-
|135
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Rob Ninkovich]]
|DE
|[[Purdue University]]
|
|-
|136
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Ryan O'Callaghan]]
|T
|[[University of California]]
|
|-
|137
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Terna Nande]]
|LB
|[[University of Miami, Ohio]]
|
|-
|138
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|[[Pat Watkins]]
|FS
|[[Florida State]]
|
|-
|139
|[[Atlanta Falcons]]
|[[Quinn Ojinnaka]]
|T
|[[University of Syracuse]]
|
|-
|140
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Parys Haralson]]
|OLB
|[[University of Tennessee]]
|
|-
|141
|[[Detroit Lions]]
|[[Jonathan Scott]]
|T
|[[University of Texas]]
|
|-
|142
|[[Arizona Cardinals]]
|[[Brandon Johnson]]
|OLB
|[[University of Louisville]]
|
|-
|143
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Brad Butler]]
|T
|[[University of Virginia]]
|
|-
|144
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Marques Hagans]]
|WR
|[[University of Virginia]]
|
|-
|145
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Jerome Harrison]]
|RB
|[[Washington State University|Washington State]]
|
|-
|146
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Dawan Landry]]
|SS
|[[Georgia Tech]]
|
|-
|147
|[[ Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[Jeremy Bloom]]
|WR
|[[University of Colorado]]
|
|-
|148
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Ingle Martin]]
|QB
|[[Furman University]]
|
|-
|149
|[[Minnesota Vikings]]
|[[Greg Blue]]
|SS
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|150
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Jason Pociask]]
|TE
|[[University of Wisconsin]]
|
|-
|151
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[Tim Dobbins]]
|ILB
|[[Iowa State]]
|
|-
|152
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[DeMario Minter]]
|DB
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|153
|[[Washington Redskins]]
|[[Anthony Montgomery]]
|DT
|[[University of Minnesota]]
|
|-
|154
|[[Kansas City Chiefs]]
|[[Marcus Maxey]]
|CB
|[[University of Miami]]
|
|-
|155
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[Jeff King]]
|TE
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|156
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Julian Jenkins]]
|DE
|[[Stanford University]]
|
|-
|157
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[A.J. Nicholson]]
|MLB
|[[Florida State]]
|
|-
|158
|[[New York Giants]]
|[[Charlie Peprah]]
|FS
|[[University of Alabama]]
|
|-
|159
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|[[Mark Anderson]]
|DE
|[[University of Alabama]]
|-
|160
|[[Jacksonville Jaguars]]
|[[Brent Hawkins]]
|DE
|[[Illinois State]]
|
|-
|161
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|[[Chris Kuper]]
|G
|[[University of North Dakota]]
|
|-
|162
|[[Indianapolis Colts]]
|[[Michael Toudouze]]
|T
|[[Texas Christian University]]
|
|-
|163
|[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|[[David Kirtman]]
|FB
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|164
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Omar Jacobs]]
| QB
|[[Bowling Green]]
|
|-
|165
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Tony Moll]]
|G
|[[University of Nevada]]
|
|-
|166
|[[ Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Quinn Sypniewski]]
|TE
|[[University of Colorado]]
|
|-
|167
|[[ Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Charles Davis]]
|TE
|[[Purdue University]]
|
|-
|168
|[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[Omar Gaither]]
|MLB
|[[University of Tennessee]]
|
|-
|169
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Jesse Mahelona]]
|DT
|[[University of Tennessee]]
|
|-

{| class="wikitable"
----

=== Sixth Round ===

|-
! Pick
! Team
! Player
! Pos
! College
! Notes
|-
|170
|[[Houston Texans]]
|[[Wali Lundy]]
|RB
|[[University of Virginia]]
|
|-
|171
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Mike Hass]]
|WR
|[[Oregon State]]
|
|-
|172
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Jonathan Orr]]
|WR
|[[University of Wisconsin]]
|
|-
|173
|[[Washington Redskins]]
|[[Reed Doughty]]
|FS
|[[University of Northern Colorado]]
|
|-
|174
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Josh Lay]]
|DB
|[[University of Pittsburgh]]
|
|-
|175
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Delanie Walker]]
|TE
|[[University of Central Missouri]]
|
|-
|176
|[[Oakland Raiders]]
|[[Kevin Boothe]]
|G
|[[Cornell University]]
|
|-
|177
|[[Arizona Cardinals]]
|[[Jonathan Lewis]]
|DT
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|178
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Keith Ellison (football player)|Keith Ellison]]
|OLB
|[[Oregon State]]
|
|-
|179
|[[Detroit Lions]]
|[[Dee McCann]]
|CB
|[[University of West Virginia]]
|
|-
|180
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Lawrence Vickers]]
|FB
|[[University of Colorado]]
|
|-
|181
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Babatunde Oshinowo]]
|DT
|[[Stanford University]]
|
|-
|182
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|[[Montavious Stanley]]
|DT
|[[University of Louisville]]
|
|-
|183
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Johnny Jolly]]
|DT
|[[Texas A&M University]]
|
|-
|184
|[[Atlanta Falcons]]
|[[Adam Jennings]]
|WR
|[[Fresno State]]
|
|-
|185
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Tyrone Culver]]
|SS
|[[Fresno State]]
|
|-
|186
|[[Kansas City Chiefs]]
|[[Tre' Stallings]]
|G
|[[University of Mississippi]]
|
|-
|187
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[Jeromey Clary]]
|T
|[[Kansas State]]
|
|-
|188
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[Kurt Smith]]
|K
|[[University of Virginia]]
|
|-
|189
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Drew Coleman]]
|CB
|[[Texas Christian University]]
|
|-
|190
|[[ Kansas City]]
|[[Jeff Webb]]
|WR
|[[San Diego State]]
|
|-
|191
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Jeremy Mincey]]
|LB
|[[University of Florida]]
|
|-
|192
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Marcus Hudson]]
|FS
|[[North Carolina State]]
|
|-
|193
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[Reggie McNeal]]
|WR
|[[Texas A&M University]]
|
|-
|194
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Bruce Gradkowski]]
|QB
|[[University of Toledo]]
|
|-
|195
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|[[J.D. Runnels]]
|FB
|[[University of Oklahoma]]
|-
|196
|[[Washington Redskins]]
|[[Kedric Golston]]
|DT
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|197
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Melvin Oliver]]
|DE
|[[Louisiana State University]]
|
|-
|198
|[[Denver Broncos]]
|[[Greg Eslinger]]
|C
|[[University of Minnesota]]
|
|-
|199
|[[Indianapolis Colts]]
|[[Charlie Johnson]]
|T
|[[Oklahoma State]]
|
|-
|200
|[[Chicago Bears]]
|[[Tyler Reed]]
|G
|[[Penn State]]
|
|-
|201
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Marvin Philip]]
|C
|[[University of California]]
|
|-
|202
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[T.J. Williams]]
|TE
|[[North Carolina State]]
|
|-
|203
|[[ Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Sam Koch]]
|P
|[[University of Nebraska]]
|
|-
|204
|[[Philadelphia Eagles]]
|[[LaJuan Ramsey]]
|DT
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|205
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Dan Stevenson]]
|G
|[[University of Notre Dame]]
|
|-
|206
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Le Kevin Smith]]
|NT
|[[University of Nebraska]]
|
|-
|207
|[[Indianapolis Colts]]
|[[Antoine Bethea]]
|SS
|[[Howard University]]
|
|-

|208
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Derrick Martin]]
|CB
|[[University of Wyoming]]
|
|-

{| class="wikitable"
=== Seventh Round ===

|-
! Pick
! Team
! Player
! Pos
! College
! Notes
|-
|209
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[Ethan Kilmer]]
|FS
|[[Penn State]]
|
|-
|210
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Zach Strief]]
|T
|[[Northwestern]]
|
|-
|211
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|[[Pat McQuistan]]
|T
|[[Weber State]]
|
|-
|212
|[[Miami Dolphins]]
|[[Fred Evans]]
|NT
|[[Texas State-San Marcos]]
|
|-
|213
|[[Jacksonville Jaguars]]
|[[James Wyche]]
|DE
|[[Syracuse University]]
|
|-
|214
|[[Oakland Raiders]]
|[[Chris Morris]]
| C
|[[Michigan State]]
|
|-
|215
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Cortland Finnegan]]
|CB
|[[Samford University]]
|
|-
|216
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Terrance Pennington]]
|T
|[[University of]]
|
|-
|217
|[[Detroit Lions]]
|[[Fred Matua]]
|T
|[[University of Southern California]]
|
|-
|218
|[[Arizona Cardinals]]
|[[Todd Watkins]]
|WR
|[[Brigham Young University]]
|
|-
|219
|[[Baltimore Ravens]]
|[[Ryan LaCasse]]
| DE
|[[University of Syracuse]]
|
|-
|220
|[[New York Jets]]
|[[Titus Adams]]
|DE
|[[University of Nebraska]]
|
|-
|221
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Tim McGarigle]]
| MLB
|[[Northwestern]]
|
|-
|222
|[[Cleveland Browns]]
|[[Justin Hamilton]]
|FS
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|223
|[[ Atlanta Falcons]]
|[[D.J. Shockley]]
| QB
|[[University of Georgia]]
|
|-
|224
|[[Dallas Cowboys]]
|[[E.J. Whitley]]
|T
|[[Texas Tech]]
|
|-
|225
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[Chase Page]]
|DT
|[[University of North Carolina]]
|
|-
|226
|[[Miami Dolphins]]
|[[Rodrique Wright]]
|DT
|[[University of Texas]]
|
|-
|227
|[[San Diego Chargers]]
|[[Jimmy Martin]]
|G
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|228
|[[Kansas City Chiefs]]
|[[Jarrad Page]]
|FS
|[[UCLA]]
|
|-
|229
|[[New England Patriots]]
|[[Willie Andrews]]
|FS
|[[Baylor University]]
|
|-
|230
|[[Washington Redskins]]
|[[Kili Lefotu ]]
|G
|[[University of Arizona]]
|
|-
|231
|[[Cincinnati Bengals]]
|[[Bennie Brazell]]
|WR
|[[Louisiana State University]]
|
|-
|232
|[[New York Giants]]
|[[Gerrick McPhearson]]
|CB
|[[University of Maryland]]
|
|-
|233
|[[Miami Dolphins]]
|[[Devin Aromashodu]]
|WR
|[[University of Auburn]]
|
|-
|234
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[Will Montgomery]]
|G
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|-
|235
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Justin Phinisee]]
|DB
|[[University of Oregon]]
|
|-
|236
|[[Jacksonville Jaguars]]
|[[Dee Webb]]
|CB
|[[University of Florida]]
|
|-
|237
|[[Carolina Panthers]]
|[[Stanley McClover]]
|DE
|[[University of Auburn]]
|
|-
|238
|[[Indianapolis Colts]]
|[[T.J. Rushing]]
|DB
|[[Stanford University]]
|
|-
|239
|[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|[[Ryan Plackemeier]]
|P
|[[Wake Forest]]
|
|-
|240
|[[Pittsburgh Steelers]]
|[[Cedric Humes]]
|RB
|[[Virginia Tech]]
|
|-
|241
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Charles Bennett]]
|DE
|[[Clemson University]]
|
|-
|242
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Mark Setterstrom]]
|G
|[[University of Minnesota]]
|
|-
|243
|[[St. Louis Rams]]
|[[Tony Palmer]]
|G
|[[University of Missouri]]
|
|-
|244
|[[Tampa Bay Buccaneers]]
|[[Tim Massaquoi]]
|TE
|[[University of Michigan]]
|
|-
|245
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Spencer Toone]]
|LB
|[[University of Utah]]
|
|-
|246
|[[Tennessee Titans]]
|[[Quinton Ganther]]
|RB
|[[University of Utah]]
|
|-
|247
|[[Detroit Lions]]
|[[Anthony Cannon]]
|OLB
|[[Tulane University]]
|
|-
|248
|[[Buffalo Bills]]
|[[Aaron Merz]]
|C
|[[University of California]]
|
|-
|249
|[[Seattle Seahawks]]
|[[Ben Obomanu]]
|WR
|[[Auburn University]]
|
|-
|250
|[[Washington Redskins]]
|[[Kevin Simon]]
|LB
|[[University of Tennessee]]
|
|-
|251
|[[Houston Texans]]
|[[David Anderson]]
|WR
|[[Colorado State]]
|
|-
|252
|[[New Orleans Saints]]
|[[Marques Colston]]
|WR
|[[University of Hofstra]]
|
|-
|253
|[[Green Bay Packers]]
|[[Dave Tollefson]]
|DE
|[[University of N.W. Missouri]]
|
|-
|254
|[[San Francisco 49ers]]
|[[Vickiel Vaughn]]
|S
|[[University of Arkansas]]
|
|-
|255
|[[Oakland Raiders]]
|[[Kevin McMahan]]
|WR
|[[University of Maine]]
|}
== Related Links ==

*[[2007 NFL Draft]]
*[[2004 NFL Draft]]

== External Links ==

*[http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/years/2006 NFL 2006 Draft History]
*[http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft06/index ESPN 2006 Draft Page]
{{NFLDraft}}
[[Category:National Football League]]

1st Amendment

2012-02-09T00:31:59Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Jpatt

#REDIRECT [[First Amendment]]

2002 NFL Draft

2012-02-09T00:31:58Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Ed Poor

#REDIRECT [[NFL Draft]]

1821 Treaty of Chicago

2012-02-09T00:31:45Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Jpatt

The '''1821 Treaty of Chicago''' was a treaty signed by Michigan territorial governor [[Lewis Cass]] and and Solomon Sibley for the United States and representatives of the Ottawa, Ojibwe, and Potawatomi on August 29, 1821. It gave the United States all land in Michigan Territory aouth of the Grand River.
==Text of the 1821 Treaty of Chicago==
ARTICLE I. The Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pottawatamie, Nations of Indians cede to the United States all the Land comprehended within the following boundaries: Beginning at a point on the south bank of the river St. Joseph of Lake Michigan, near the Parc aux Vaches, due north from Rum's Village, and running thence south to a line drawn due east from the southern extreme of Lake Michigan, thence with the said line east to the Tract ceded by the Pottawatamies to the United States by the Treaty of Fort Meigs in 1817, if the said line should strike the said Tract, but if the said line should pass north of the said Tract, then such line shall be continued until it strikes the western boundary of the Tract ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Detroit in 1807, and from the termination of the said line, following the boundaries of former cessions, to the main branch of the Grand River of Lake Michigan, should any of the said lines cross the said River, but if none of the said lines should cross the said River, then to a point due east of the source of the said main branch of the said river, and from such point due west to the source of the said principal branch, and from the crossing of the said River, or from the source thereof, as the case may be, down the said River, on the north bank thereof, to the mouth; thence following the shore of Lake Michigan to the south bank of the said river St. Joseph, at the mouth thereof, and thence with the said south bank to the place of beginning.

ART. 2. From the cession aforesaid, there shall be reserved, for the use of the Indians, the following Tracts:

One tract at Mang-ach-qua Village, on the river Peble, of six miles square.
One tract at Mick-ke-saw-be, of six miles square.
One tract at the village of Na-to-wa-se-pe, of four miles square.
One tract at the village of Prairie Ronde, of three miles square.
One tract at the village of Match-e-be narh-she-wish, at the head of the Kekalamazoo river.

ART. 3. There shall be granted by the United States to each of the following persons, being all Indians by descent, and to their heirs, the following Tracts of Land:

To John Burnet, two sections of land.

To James Burnet, Abraham Burnet, Rebecca Burnet, and Nancy Burnet, each one section of land; which said John, James, Abraham, Rebecca, and Nancy, are children of Kaw-kee-me, sister of Top-ni-be, principal chief of the Potowatamie nation.

The land granted to the persons immediately preceding, shall begin on the north bank of the river St. Joseph, about two miles from the mouth, and shall extend up and back from the said river for quantity.

To John B. La Lime, son of Noke-no-qua, one-half of a section of land, adjoining the tract before granted, and on the upper side thereof.

To Jean B. Chandonai, son of Chip-pe-wa-qua, two sections of land, on the river St. Joseph, above and adjoining the tract granted to J. B. La Lime.

To Joseph Dazé, son of Chip-pe-wa-qua, one section of land above and adjoining the tract granted to Jean B. Chandonai.

To Monguago, one-half of a section of land, at Mish-she-wa-ko-kink.

To Pierre Moran, or Peeresh, a Potawatamie Chief, one section of land, and to his children two sections of land, at the mouth of the Elkheart river.

To Pierre Le Clerc, son of Moi-qua, one section of land on the Elkheart river, above and adjoining the tract granted to Moran and his children.

The section of land granted by the Treaty of St. Mary's, in 1818, to Peeresh or Perig, shall be granted to Jean B. Cicot, son of Pe-say-quot, sister of the said Peeresh, it having been so intended at the execution of the said Treaty.

To O-she-ak-ke-be or Benac, one-half of a section of land on the north side of the Elk-heart river, where the road from Chicago to Fort Wayne first crosses the said river.

To Me-naw-che, a Potawatamie woman, one-half of a section of land on the eastern bank of the St. Joseph, where the road from Detroit to Chicago first crosses the said river.

To Theresa Chandler or To-e-ak-qui, a Potawatamie woman, and to her daughter Betsey Fisher, one section of land on the south side of the Grand River, opposite to the Spruce Swamp.

To Charles Beaubien and Medart Beaubien, sons of Man-na-ben-a-qua, each one-half of a section of land near the village of Ke-wi-go-shkeem, on the Washtenaw river.

To Antoine Roland, son of I-gat-pat-a-wat-a-mie-qua, one-half of a section of land adjoining and below the tract granted to Pierre Moran.

To William Knaggs or Was-es-kuk-son, son of Ches-qua, one-half of a section of land adjoining and below the tract granted to Antoine Roland.

To Madeline Bertrand, wife of Joseph Bertrand, a Potawatamie woman, one section of land at the Parc aux Vaches, on the north side of the river St. Joseph.

To Joseph Bertrand, junior, Benjamin Bertrand, Laurent Bertrand, Theresa Bertrand, and Amable Bertrand, children of the said Madeline Bertrand, each one half of a section of land at the portage of the Kankakee river.

To John Riley, son of Me-naw-cum-a-go-quoi, one section of land, at the mouth of the river Au Foin, on the Grand River, and extending up the said River.

To Peter Riley, the son of Me-naw-cum-e-go-quoi, one section of land, at the mouth of the river Au Foin, on the Grand River, and extending down the said River.

To Jean B. Le Clerc, son of Moi-qua, one half of a section of land, above and adjoining the tract granted to Pierre Le Clerc.

To Joseph La Framboise, son of Shaw-we-no-qua, one section of land upon the south side of the river St. Joseph, and adjoining on the upper side the land ceded to the United States, which said section is also ceded to the United States.

The Tracts of Land herein stipulated to be granted, shall never be leased or conveyed by the grantees or their heirs to any persons whatever, without the permission of the President of the United States. And such tracts shall be located after the said cession is surveyed, and in conformity with such surveys as near as may be, and in such manner as the President may direct.

ART. 4. In consideration of the cession aforesaid, the United States engage to pay to the Ottawa nation, one thousand dollars in specie annually forever, and also to appropriate annually, for the term of ten years, the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, to be expended as the President may direct, in the support of a Blacksmith, of a Teacher, and of a person to instruct the Ottawas in agriculture and in the purchase of cattle and farming utensils. And the United States also engage to pay to the Potawatamie nation five thousand dollars in specie, annually, for the term of twenty years, and also to appropriate annually, for the term of fifteen years, the sum of one thousand dollars, to be expended as the President may direct, in the support of a Blacksmith and a Teacher. And one mile square shall be selected, under the direction of the President, on the north side of the Grand River, and one mile square on the south side of the St. Joseph, and within the Indian lands not ceded, upon which the blacksmiths and teachers employed for the said tribes, respectively, shall reside.

ART. 5. The stipulation contained in the treaty of Greenville, relative to the right of the Indians to hunt upon the land ceded while it continues the property of the United States, shall apply to this treaty.

ART. 6. The United States shall have the privilege of making and using a road through the Indian country, from Detroit and Fort Wayne, respectively, to Chicago.

ART. 7. This Treaty shall take effect and be obligatory on the contracting parties, so soon as the same shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof.

In testimony whereof, the said Lewis Cass and Solomon Sibley, commissioners as aforesaid, and the chiefs and warriors of the said Ottawa, Chippewa, and Pattiwatima nations, have hereunto set their hands, at Chicago aforesaid, this 29th day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one.

Lewis Cass,
Solomon Sibley.

[[Category:Treaties]]

1966 Midterm Elections

2012-02-09T00:31:44Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

In the '''midterm election of 1966''', the [[Republican Party]] gained 47 seats in the [[U.S. House of Representatives]] and three seats in the [[U.S. Senate]] from the [[Democratic Party]]. Republicans also gained eight governorships and 557 state legislative seats.

Following President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]]'s landslide presidential victory in 1964, Democrats had a supermajority in both chambers. Johnson launched the War on Poverty, which included the passage of [[Medicare]] and [[Medicaid]] and a flood of other liberal legislation. However, public opposition to the [[Great Society]], lack of success in [[Vietnam]] and race riots resulted Johnson's popularity to decline.

Although Democrats retained a clear majority after the election, Johnson lost the liberal mandate and proposed no new major reforms in 1967. Republicans made significant gains in the south for the first time since Reconstruction, with one-third of southern House seats controlled by Republicans.

Future Republican U.S. Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] was elected Governor of [[California]] and [[George H.W. Bush]] was elected to Congress in [[Texas]]. [[Richard M. Nixon]] actively campaigned for Republican candidates, which helped propel him to the Presidency.

[[category:Politics]]
[[category:Republican Party]]
[[category:Democratic Party]]

2000 BC

2012-02-09T00:31:43Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by AugustO

[[Abraham]]

[[Aryans]]

[[Hammurabi]]

[[Hatshepsut]]

[[Hittites]]

[[Hyksos]]

[[Kingdom of Kush]]

[[Moses]]

[[New Kingdom]]

[[Shang dynasty]]

[[Category:Years]]

"lame duck" session

2012-02-09T00:31:42Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Jpatt

#REDIRECT [["Lame duck" Session]]

1991 NFL Draft

2012-02-09T00:31:42Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by AugustO

#REDIRECT [[NFL Draft]]

"information theory"

2012-02-09T00:31:42Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Michaeldsuarez

#REDIRECT [[Information theory]]

2008 Democratic National Convention

2012-02-09T00:31:41Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

#REDIRECT [[United_States_Presidential_Election,_2008_-_Conventions#Democratic_National_Convention]]

1994 National Defense Authorization Act

2012-02-09T00:31:40Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by AugustO

The '''1994 National Defense Authorization Act''' states:

:The presence in the [[armed forces]] of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and [[unit cohesion]] that are the essence of military capability.

[[Category:United States Law]]

2007 key issues

2012-02-09T00:31:37Z

PhilipN: Reverted edits by AndrahKolkata (talk) to last revision by Aschlafly

Between March 1, 2007 and November 24, 2007, the total number of federal decisions rendered on the following issues is 633, broken down in the following manner:

* [[Establishment Clause]] - 128 decisions, including ''[[Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc.]]''
* [[Second Amendment]] - 111 decisions, but many may be frivolous defenses by criminals
* [[Takings Clause]] - 135 decisions
* [[Title IX]] - 153 decisions
* [[Parental rights]] - 117, including ''[[Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist.]]''
* state [[Equal Rights Amendment]] - 4 decisions

[[Supreme Court]] - only 2 decisions
[[Courts of Appeals]] - 132 decisions
[[District Courts]] - 499 decisions
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]