Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:SkipJohnson

2007-09-06T17:21:41Z

Porthos:

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:29, 15 August 2007 (EDT)}}
 
I suspect that you're trying to be funny, but Jay Leno has nothing to fear from you. We know that recent dates are in "AD". Improve your quality to the high level here, or expect to have your account blocked. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:57, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== categorizing articles ==

Hi! :)

Thanks for adding a new article. Please, though, categorize your articles when you create them; while there are those of us who will go through and clean-up the uncategorized articles, you know your subject better than we do.

For a list of categories, go here: [[Special:Categories]]. To add a category to your article, type two open brackets, then "category:" followed by the category you want. Just add two closed brackets and you're done! You can add as many categories as you feel are appropriate. Thanks!

==The KKK==

I'm just curious what label you would use to describe the KKK, because I don't think "liberal" quite matches up either. I'll give you that it's confusing and probably inaccurate to call them "conservative" going by the modern layperson understanding of the term, but by a strict application of political theory they would be considered an extreme far-right organization.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:21, 6 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig

2007-08-31T19:42:17Z

Porthos:

What's CP's view on Larry Craig?

: CP is not one person, and should be expected to have one view. Why don't you ask, "what's the view of the Encyclopedia Britannica on Larry Craig?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::You're absolutely right; that's a ridiculous question.

::Hey, people who monitor Talk:Main Page - what do you think of Larry Craig, his situation, the media coverage of him/it, et cetera? Me, I think he clearly got caught soliciting lewd acts in the men's room. I also don't think it has any bearing on the Republican party or conservatism in general. It paints HIM as a hypocrite, given his voting record and speeches, but that's his problem. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-I'm only one man, I can only do so much...''

::: Actually, CP does present one view on many subjects. For example, the official view of CP is that there's liberal bias in the mainstream media, or how liberals use deceit copiously to get their ways. Another example would be an opposition to evolution. That's what I was asking. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 00:19, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I think it's too early to tell; we need to let liberal [[homophobia]] and anti-gay [[hate speech]] run its course and then look at the sources and evidence. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So liberals are pro-gay and anti-gay, and homophobic at the same time? How is homophobia a "liberal" concept? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 00:19, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:Ralph.gif|left|thumb|500px]] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT) 
:::::''ABC News'' already reported on this, "Secret Signals: How Gay Men Cruise for Sex When Men Cruise for Sex in Public Places, Police Take Notice, Some Gays Say It's Unfair" [http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3534199&page=1] This appears to be related to [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]. The article quotes Steve Sanders, a lawyer and gay rights activist, "Citizens have a right not to confront lewd activity in public places, but if there is evidence that a sting is motivated by anti-gay animus, that may represent a more troubling issue." The article goes on to advertise restrooms at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and websites with how-to instructions to avoid discrimination and arrest.

:::::So, this is the test to see how really compassionate liberals are. Above someone blasts Craig’s voting record; what does that have to do with any of this? I'd love to see the convoluted reasoning in this, how his "private sex life", which "is nobody's business" is connected to his hypocrisy in voting for Congressional Appropriations, or any other matter. Even if he voted for something like the Defense of Marriage Act, doesn't he (a) have the right to vote his conscience, and (b) have the responsibility to represent his constituency over any personal interest or motive? And wouldn't voting a certain way to serve some personal, self interest or motive itself be a conflict of interest worthy of condemnation? Finally, after hearing for more than a decade now that "what a person does in their private sex life is nobodies business", the writer above calls Craig a hypocrite. I'll lay a $10 bet that same writer was a defender of Clinton, and spoke harshly of Republican House managers. Care to carry the discussion further on hypocrisy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:04, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::OOOooo, let's. First of all, I want my ten dollars. ("Oh sure, prove it," says Rob, which just goes to show how safe his accusation was to make.) I "blasted" his voting record, in that I said it painted him as a hypocrite to vote one way and behave in another. So yeah, I'm down with a further discussion of hypocrisy. How is his behavior NOT hypocritical? AND BEFORE YOU TRY AND GO THERE - me calling him a hypocrite is not me defending a homosexual lifestyle. He wants to be against homosexuality, that's entirely his right and I'm not trying to stop him. But to legislate against "lewd behaviors" and then to conduct said behaviors himself is... hang on, there's a word somebody just tried to tar me with, what was it... ponder ponder think think... right, hypocritical.

::::::What *I* want to know, and given the absolutely crap-tastic response to my earlier post Rob gave I think an answer is in order, is why there's a need to defend the guy? Can a single Republican not do wrong without it bringing down the entire conservative establishment? What the heck is so important about Larry Craig that the point can't ever be conceded that he's a hypocrite? I've voted Republican plenty of times (don't know if it's more or less than half, counting state and local elections, but it's not insignificant) and I couldn't care less if there's a scummy Republican out there. Guy's no good, guy goes away. Same thing happens to Democrats, and it's not like... er, ... it's not like anybody tries to undermine... tries to undermine the entire party that way...

::::::Oh. Got it. I'm going back to categorizing, nobody votes for those. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-not at all impressed...''

I don't care if you're straight, gay or Klingon...sex in a public place is *NOT* acceptable.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Porthos: Craig did not engage in sex in public, and your suggestion that he did is an exaggeration. What? would you prefer he engaged in private sexual activity in the workplace, as Clinton did, with a subordinate while on the time clock? Would that make it acceptable & excusable?

*Aziraphale: ''to legislate against "lewd behaviors"''; cite one instance in the voting record where this occurred. In fact, cite one instance in any federal legislation where this is the purview of the federal government.
*''Can a single Republican not do wrong''; isn't this a bit hypocritical, I thought homosexuality was normal and acceptable? What's "wrong" with it? even ''ABC News'' went out of its way to publicize entrapment of gays for "being themselves" is "unfair".
*''painted him as a hypocrite to vote one way and behave in another''; cite one instance, any example, to support this claim.
*And finally, you have not addressed the simple underlying claim the Craig is not at liberty to allow personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record. And your advocacy of such standards is a bit hypocritical itself, don't you think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Dude, the point is not whether homosexuality is wrong. The point is that he was accused of signalling for sex in a public place. The ABC article you cited says that clearly - the public has the right not to walk on any lewd activity going on in a public place - which was the next step if Craig wasn't caught (hence Portho's comment regarding sex in a public place). BTW, the workplace is still a public place, and you need to do better than drag Clinton into an argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. And with regards to allowing "personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record" - I believe that's the basis of accusations of hypocrisy for liberals; see last month's "Breaking News" about an anti-gun democrat shooting a would-be thief. In that case his "personal" agenda is to shoot people, but by your logic, he has taken the high ground and took an anti-gun stance, against his personal motivations. I can't see how one could apply that definition of hypocrisy only to one party. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:28, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''Two wrongs don't make a right.'' And this is not hypocricy?
:*The ''ABC News'' article says, "In an effort to curb lewd acts in public — or as some gays argue, '''in an effort to persecute gay men''' — undercover police began sting operations..." Apparantly societal and systemic [[homophobia]] is operative, according to [[gay rights]] activists, in this case. The article continues, "police would have to prove that actions such as foot tapping were known signals....What constitutes probable cause?..... police officers would have to produce evidence to say here is how we can say with certainty this is was really a lewd act"
:*''with regards to allowing "personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record'', this relates more to accusations such as Bush got us into Iraq to benefit his friends in big oil, IOW, the record of elected officials, not an example such as you cite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::1. [[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380 Ok.]] 2.Don't put words in my mouth, it's a filthy habit that can lead to mad cow disease. I didn't say that homosexuality was wrong. His hypocrisy is wrong, and his commission of a crime is wrong. I frankly don't care how the guy wants to have sex. Since you're asking me to do your research for you re: his voting record, please help me out by showing your previous support for the political bias of MSM and your attacks on those who say the MSM supports values outside the norm. Otherwise, explain to me why I should care what ABC News says? 3. Please don't speak in gibberish, CP hasn't installed a language translation module as yet. I'll let you win your $10 back if you can successfully diagram your sentence that begins "And finally" without uncovering one or more errors that makes it impossible to parse.

::That said, you say ''"And your advocacy of such standards is a bit hypocritical itself, don't you think?"'' No, I don't think, and if you think it you're delusional. What personal belief, or set of actions, can I lay claim to that run counter to any ''professed'' belief of mine or public statement that I've uttered? Come on Rob, lay it out for me, step by step: how has [[User:Aziraphale]] been hypocritical? You lay it out clearly and I'll a) publicly apologize to you and b) leave you alone except for those times when you hypothetically might ask me to speak with you. Don't expect me to just accept whatever you say, though, if it doesn't stand up you'll be deservedly ridiculed for trying to hang false accusations around my neck to win an argument by any means necessary.

::This also doesn't change the subject, by the way. How is Craig *not* at the very least, a liar? You read the officer's report (which is available to be read, not just rumored about) and there is NO WAY to believe anything other than that Craig was following LONG established methods for sussing out... well, frankly, gay sex in a public men's room. Why does this need defending? Shoo him on and elect a new Republican to take his place, or whatever Idahoans want. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-You can say "whoops" now...''

:::Rob S, I'm replying in the style of your defense of Craig - which also doesn't have anything to do with Bush - unless your view only applies to elected officials, as once they get that position, they're above hypocrisy?
:::How is "two wrongs don't make a right" a hypocrisy? Elaborate, please.
:::Tell me, how does someone mistakenly plead guilty (mind you, it's not a no-contest. It implies admission of guilt)? If he's confident he didn't signal for sex, he would've pleaded otherwise, instead of pleading guilty, then say that was a mistake; then proceed to argue with the arresting officer how he was trying to pick up a piece of paper. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:56, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Ok, let's not parse and drag this out. Let's simply compare the Clinton case, ''where a sexaul act actually did occur''. Clinton survived in office, despite negative publicity & condemnation.

We can go back & forth on hypocricy all day. Bottomline, no one has connected the alleged rumors of Craig being homosexual to his voting record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well, not really. I'm pretty sure you cannot apply your definition of hypocrisy without being hypocritical (unless it's under your definition as well - now my head hurts). And you still haven't answered my question regarding "two wrongs don't make a right". How can that be hypocrisy, when it is simply a statement regarding debate conduct?
:Ok... Clinton survived in office... how does that relate to what we're talking about? No comment was made on whether Craig will finish his term... And I've already stated that Clinton was wrong (I mean, come on, sex with an intern at the workplace? That guy needs a spanking), and bringing that up doesn't make Craig right in asking for sex. (As to whether a sexual act "actually" occurred, try using that defense in undercover prostitution stings.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, let's cut to the quick on this, Should Clinton have been removed from office for his conduct, yes or no? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Senate didn't seem to think so.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:39, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I think most definitely, he should have been fired, just like any other workplace. (Haha, I suddenly have an image of 300 million Americans doing the simultaneous Trump Cobra "you're fired" hand gesture.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

'''Reponding to Rob from 14:09, not anything that follows after'''
::Sorry, Rob, I appreciate that you want to back down but your "bottom line" is wrong. [[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380 Here's the same link I provided earlier.]] If you're having problems understanding the link, let me know and I'll spell it out for you.

::And you're trying to change what we were actually talking about: I said a)Craig was a hypocrite, and b)not worth defending because he doesn't stand for anything larger than himself. You decided to lay on the "nuh unh, ''you're'' a hypocrite" defense. You say "let's not parse and drag this out," but you're the one who decided to lay waste with the accusations. You don't seem to like that your tactic roused a spirited defense, but too bad - you accuse someone of something that isn't true, you get to swallow the consequences.

::But to be more courteous to you than you have been to me, I will continue to directly respond to what you say. Yes, by all means, let's compare the Clinton case. Clinton lied about what he did. He perjured himself. That is a very bad thing. Craig solicited sex in a public men's room; skip the homosexuality if you want, this wouldn't be any less illegal if somehow it had been a woman in that men's room stall. He committed a crime, which he pleaded "guilty" to. That is a very bad thing. You've apparently conceded my ABC News point, and my "Aziraphale is a hypocrite" point, so here's another chance to win back the $10 you owe me for betting I was a Clinton supporter who complained about Republican House managers. This time, I want you to show me that you maintained a "live and let live" attitude during the Clinton impeachment saga, or even easier, that you think the whole thing was overblown in retrospect. I've been pretty nice about these bets, I don't even hold you accountable for the ones you've lost other than your original proposition.

::If "let's not go back and forth all day" was some kind of milquetoast apology, please clarify. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes please spell it out; Craig appears to have voted "yes" to the Defense Appropriation Act that included "Don't Ask Don't Tell", unless I'm reading it wrong.

:::Clinton lied under oath, which was an impeachment charge. Lying under oath did not "rise to the level" of removal from office. Craig did precisely the opposite: plead guilty, and not ''nolo contendre'', to a sex-related charge. Guilty implies intent, which by biblical standards is the same as the act itself, as in the Clinton case. Craig did not "lie" about the guilty plea, he expressed '''regret''' that he did.

:::So apparantly at this point, lying about sex does not rise to the level of removal from office, but being a victim of institutional [[homophobic]] laws warrants character assassination. That seems to be the status of the case. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Rob, I'm not really sure I see the parallel you're trying to draw between this case and Clinton. Whether, morally, Clinton should have been removed from office is a wholly separate matter from the Senate vote that acquitted him. Legality (or legislation) does not imply morality or vice versa.

::::Also, I'm '''really''' confused about your use of the term "homophobic". Let's put it this way...I'm 100% conservative when it comes to some things, like the right to bear arms. But I'm pretty liberal (or libertarian?) when it comes to social issues like private sexual expression. But even *I* don't think that sex in public places is okay. The laws against public lewdness are not homophobic; they apply equally to men and women and straight and gay.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

*Clinton lied under oath about sex, which '''did not''' "rise to the level" of removal from office. Craig confessed under oath to intent (the same as the act). How does this "rise to the level" of removal from office?
*Our [[homophobia]] article links to several [[American Psychological Association]] (APA) papers about "societal homophobia" and "internalized homophobia." Let's forget the internalized part in this discussion, and look at "societal homophobia." Groups like NARTH say societal homophobia is a crock, whereas more (shall we say) "liberal" inclinded authors and organizations such as the APA maintain homosexuals are societal victims of homophobia, and "institutional homphobia," such as laws that target gays such as outlined in the ''ABC News'' article. Many gay rights activists view the sting operation that netted Craig as discriminitory. So we are back to the issue of hypocricy, once again. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:34, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well...I don't think there's anything close to an impeachment case against Craig. The pressure he's feeling to resign is from forces within his own party.

:And *I*, at least, do not view sting operations to nab cruisers as discriminatory. If straight people cruised in the same manner that gay men do, I would want them nabbed as well. Cruising is so incredibly dangerous, since (opinion, I have no figures to back this up) most people who cruise for sex don't use any means of protection when they do it. It *is* true that for the most part, only gay men are arrested for cruising but that's because really, only gay men cruise. I don't think even gay women cruise.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:42, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Too much blathering, unrelated to improving the [[Main Page]] or the (now unprotected) [[Larry Craig]] article. Any reason I shouldn't move all of this talk to [[Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig

2007-08-31T19:19:50Z

Porthos:

What's CP's view on Larry Craig?

: CP is not one person, and should be expected to have one view. Why don't you ask, "what's the view of the Encyclopedia Britannica on Larry Craig?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::You're absolutely right; that's a ridiculous question.

::Hey, people who monitor Talk:Main Page - what do you think of Larry Craig, his situation, the media coverage of him/it, et cetera? Me, I think he clearly got caught soliciting lewd acts in the men's room. I also don't think it has any bearing on the Republican party or conservatism in general. It paints HIM as a hypocrite, given his voting record and speeches, but that's his problem. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-I'm only one man, I can only do so much...''

::: Actually, CP does present one view on many subjects. For example, the official view of CP is that there's liberal bias in the mainstream media, or how liberals use deceit copiously to get their ways. Another example would be an opposition to evolution. That's what I was asking. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 00:19, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I think it's too early to tell; we need to let liberal [[homophobia]] and anti-gay [[hate speech]] run its course and then look at the sources and evidence. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So liberals are pro-gay and anti-gay, and homophobic at the same time? How is homophobia a "liberal" concept? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 00:19, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:Ralph.gif|left|thumb|500px]] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT) 
:::::''ABC News'' already reported on this, "Secret Signals: How Gay Men Cruise for Sex When Men Cruise for Sex in Public Places, Police Take Notice, Some Gays Say It's Unfair" [http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3534199&page=1] This appears to be related to [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]. The article quotes Steve Sanders, a lawyer and gay rights activist, "Citizens have a right not to confront lewd activity in public places, but if there is evidence that a sting is motivated by anti-gay animus, that may represent a more troubling issue." The article goes on to advertise restrooms at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and websites with how-to instructions to avoid discrimination and arrest.

:::::So, this is the test to see how really compassionate liberals are. Above someone blasts Craig’s voting record; what does that have to do with any of this? I'd love to see the convoluted reasoning in this, how his "private sex life", which "is nobody's business" is connected to his hypocrisy in voting for Congressional Appropriations, or any other matter. Even if he voted for something like the Defense of Marriage Act, doesn't he (a) have the right to vote his conscience, and (b) have the responsibility to represent his constituency over any personal interest or motive? And wouldn't voting a certain way to serve some personal, self interest or motive itself be a conflict of interest worthy of condemnation? Finally, after hearing for more than a decade now that "what a person does in their private sex life is nobodies business", the writer above calls Craig a hypocrite. I'll lay a $10 bet that same writer was a defender of Clinton, and spoke harshly of Republican House managers. Care to carry the discussion further on hypocrisy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:04, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::OOOooo, let's. First of all, I want my ten dollars. ("Oh sure, prove it," says Rob, which just goes to show how safe his accusation was to make.) I "blasted" his voting record, in that I said it painted him as a hypocrite to vote one way and behave in another. So yeah, I'm down with a further discussion of hypocrisy. How is his behavior NOT hypocritical? AND BEFORE YOU TRY AND GO THERE - me calling him a hypocrite is not me defending a homosexual lifestyle. He wants to be against homosexuality, that's entirely his right and I'm not trying to stop him. But to legislate against "lewd behaviors" and then to conduct said behaviors himself is... hang on, there's a word somebody just tried to tar me with, what was it... ponder ponder think think... right, hypocritical.

::::::What *I* want to know, and given the absolutely crap-tastic response to my earlier post Rob gave I think an answer is in order, is why there's a need to defend the guy? Can a single Republican not do wrong without it bringing down the entire conservative establishment? What the heck is so important about Larry Craig that the point can't ever be conceded that he's a hypocrite? I've voted Republican plenty of times (don't know if it's more or less than half, counting state and local elections, but it's not insignificant) and I couldn't care less if there's a scummy Republican out there. Guy's no good, guy goes away. Same thing happens to Democrats, and it's not like... er, ... it's not like anybody tries to undermine... tries to undermine the entire party that way...

::::::Oh. Got it. I'm going back to categorizing, nobody votes for those. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-not at all impressed...''

I don't care if you're straight, gay or Klingon...sex in a public place is *NOT* acceptable.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Porthos: Craig did not engage in sex in public, and your suggestion that he did is an exaggeration. What? would you prefer he engaged in private sexual activity in the workplace, as Clinton did, with a subordinate while on the time clock? Would that make it acceptable & excusable?

*Aziraphale: ''to legislate against "lewd behaviors"''; cite one instance in the voting record where this occurred. In fact, cite one instance in any federal legislation where this is the purview of the federal government.
*''Can a single Republican not do wrong''; isn't this a bit hypocritical, I thought homosexuality was normal and acceptable? What's "wrong" with it? even ''ABC News'' went out of its way to publicize entrapment of gays for "being themselves" is "unfair".
*''painted him as a hypocrite to vote one way and behave in another''; cite one instance, any example, to support this claim.
*And finally, you have not addressed the simple underlying claim the Craig is not at liberty to allow personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record. And your advocacy of such standards is a bit hypocritical itself, don't you think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Dude, the point is not whether homosexuality is wrong. The point is that he was accused of signalling for sex in a public place. The ABC article you cited says that clearly - the public has the right not to walk on any lewd activity going on in a public place - which was the next step if Craig wasn't caught (hence Portho's comment regarding sex in a public place). BTW, the workplace is still a public place, and you need to do better than drag Clinton into an argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. And with regards to allowing "personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record" - I believe that's the basis of accusations of hypocrisy for liberals; see last month's "Breaking News" about an anti-gun democrat shooting a would-be thief. In that case his "personal" agenda is to shoot people, but by your logic, he has taken the high ground and took an anti-gun stance, against his personal motivations. I can't see how one could apply that definition of hypocrisy only to one party. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:28, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''Two wrongs don't make a right.'' And this is not hypocricy?
:*The ''ABC News'' article says, "In an effort to curb lewd acts in public — or as some gays argue, '''in an effort to persecute gay men''' — undercover police began sting operations..." Apparantly societal and systemic [[homophobia]] is operative, according to [[gay rights]] activists, in this case. The article continues, "police would have to prove that actions such as foot tapping were known signals....What constitutes probable cause?..... police officers would have to produce evidence to say here is how we can say with certainty this is was really a lewd act"
:*''with regards to allowing "personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record'', this relates more to accusations such as Bush got us into Iraq to benefit his friends in big oil, IOW, the record of elected officials, not an example such as you cite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::1. [[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380 Ok.]] 2.Don't put words in my mouth, it's a filthy habit that can lead to mad cow disease. I didn't say that homosexuality was wrong. His hypocrisy is wrong, and his commission of a crime is wrong. I frankly don't care how the guy wants to have sex. Since you're asking me to do your research for you re: his voting record, please help me out by showing your previous support for the political bias of MSM and your attacks on those who say the MSM supports values outside the norm. Otherwise, explain to me why I should care what ABC News says? 3. Please don't speak in gibberish, CP hasn't installed a language translation module as yet. I'll let you win your $10 back if you can successfully diagram your sentence that begins "And finally" without uncovering one or more errors that makes it impossible to parse.

::That said, you say ''"And your advocacy of such standards is a bit hypocritical itself, don't you think?"'' No, I don't think, and if you think it you're delusional. What personal belief, or set of actions, can I lay claim to that run counter to any ''professed'' belief of mine or public statement that I've uttered? Come on Rob, lay it out for me, step by step: how has [[User:Aziraphale]] been hypocritical? You lay it out clearly and I'll a) publicly apologize to you and b) leave you alone except for those times when you hypothetically might ask me to speak with you. Don't expect me to just accept whatever you say, though, if it doesn't stand up you'll be deservedly ridiculed for trying to hang false accusations around my neck to win an argument by any means necessary.

::This also doesn't change the subject, by the way. How is Craig *not* at the very least, a liar? You read the officer's report (which is available to be read, not just rumored about) and there is NO WAY to believe anything other than that Craig was following LONG established methods for sussing out... well, frankly, gay sex in a public men's room. Why does this need defending? Shoo him on and elect a new Republican to take his place, or whatever Idahoans want. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-You can say "whoops" now...''

:::Rob S, I'm replying in the style of your defense of Craig - which also doesn't have anything to do with Bush - unless your view only applies to elected officials, as once they get that position, they're above hypocrisy?
:::How is "two wrongs don't make a right" a hypocrisy? Elaborate, please.
:::Tell me, how does someone mistakenly plead guilty (mind you, it's not a no-contest. It implies admission of guilt)? If he's confident he didn't signal for sex, he would've pleaded otherwise, instead of pleading guilty, then say that was a mistake; then proceed to argue with the arresting officer how he was trying to pick up a piece of paper. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:56, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Ok, let's not parse and drag this out. Let's simply compare the Clinton case, ''where a sexaul act actually did occur''. Clinton survived in office, despite negative publicity & condemnation.

We can go back & forth on hypocricy all day. Bottomline, no one has connected the alleged rumors of Craig being homosexual to his voting record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well, not really. I'm pretty sure you cannot apply your definition of hypocrisy without being hypocritical (unless it's under your definition as well - now my head hurts). And you still haven't answered my question regarding "two wrongs don't make a right". How can that be hypocrisy, when it is simply a statement regarding debate conduct?
:Ok... Clinton survived in office... how does that relate to what we're talking about? No comment was made on whether Craig will finish his term... And I've already stated that Clinton was wrong (I mean, come on, sex with an intern at the workplace? That guy needs a spanking), and bringing that up doesn't make Craig right in asking for sex. (As to whether a sexual act "actually" occurred, try using that defense in undercover prostitution stings.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, let's cut to the quick on this, Should Clinton have been removed from office for his conduct, yes or no? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Senate didn't seem to think so.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:39, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I think most definitely, he should have been fired, just like any other workplace. (Haha, I suddenly have an image of 300 million Americans doing the simultaneous Trump Cobra "you're fired" hand gesture.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

'''Reponding to Rob from 14:09, not anything that follows after'''
::Sorry, Rob, I appreciate that you want to back down but your "bottom line" is wrong. [[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380 Here's the same link I provided earlier.]] If you're having problems understanding the link, let me know and I'll spell it out for you.

::And you're trying to change what we were actually talking about: I said a)Craig was a hypocrite, and b)not worth defending because he doesn't stand for anything larger than himself. You decided to lay on the "nuh unh, ''you're'' a hypocrite" defense. You say "let's not parse and drag this out," but you're the one who decided to lay waste with the accusations. You don't seem to like that your tactic roused a spirited defense, but too bad - you accuse someone of something that isn't true, you get to swallow the consequences.

::But to be more courteous to you than you have been to me, I will continue to directly respond to what you say. Yes, by all means, let's compare the Clinton case. Clinton lied about what he did. He perjured himself. That is a very bad thing. Craig solicited sex in a public men's room; skip the homosexuality if you want, this wouldn't be any less illegal if somehow it had been a woman in that men's room stall. He committed a crime, which he pleaded "guilty" to. That is a very bad thing. You've apparently conceded my ABC News point, and my "Aziraphale is a hypocrite" point, so here's another chance to win back the $10 you owe me for betting I was a Clinton supporter who complained about Republican House managers. This time, I want you to show me that you maintained a "live and let live" attitude during the Clinton impeachment saga, or even easier, that you think the whole thing was overblown in retrospect. I've been pretty nice about these bets, I don't even hold you accountable for the ones you've lost other than your original proposition.

::If "let's not go back and forth all day" was some kind of milquetoast apology, please clarify. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes please spell it out; Craig appears to have voted "yes" to the Defense Appropriation Act that included "Don't Ask Don't Tell", unless I'm reading it wrong.

:::Clinton lied under oath, which was an impeachment charge. Lying under oath did not "rise to the level" of removal from office. Craig did precisely the opposite: plead guilty, and not ''nolo contendre'', to a sex-related charge. Guilty implies intent, which by biblical standards is the same as the act itself, as in the Clinton case. Craig did not "lie" about the guilty plea, he expressed '''regret''' that he did.

:::So apparantly at this point, lying about sex does not rise to the level of removal from office, but being a victim of institutional [[homophobic]] laws warrants character assassination. That seems to be the status of the case. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Rob, I'm not really sure I see the parallel you're trying to draw between this case and Clinton. Whether, morally, Clinton should have been removed from office is a wholly separate matter from the Senate vote that acquitted him. Legality (or legislation) does not imply morality or vice versa.

::::Also, I'm '''really''' confused about your use of the term "homophobic". Let's put it this way...I'm 100% conservative when it comes to some things, like the right to bear arms. But I'm pretty liberal (or libertarian?) when it comes to social issues like private sexual expression. But even *I* don't think that sex in public places is okay. The laws against public lewdness are not homophobic; they apply equally to men and women and straight and gay.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Too much blathering, unrelated to improving the [[Main Page]] or the (now unprotected) [[Larry Craig]] article. Any reason I shouldn't move all of this talk to [[Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig

2007-08-31T19:12:11Z

Porthos:

What's CP's view on Larry Craig?

: CP is not one person, and should be expected to have one view. Why don't you ask, "what's the view of the Encyclopedia Britannica on Larry Craig?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::You're absolutely right; that's a ridiculous question.

::Hey, people who monitor Talk:Main Page - what do you think of Larry Craig, his situation, the media coverage of him/it, et cetera? Me, I think he clearly got caught soliciting lewd acts in the men's room. I also don't think it has any bearing on the Republican party or conservatism in general. It paints HIM as a hypocrite, given his voting record and speeches, but that's his problem. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 23:09, 30 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-I'm only one man, I can only do so much...''

::: Actually, CP does present one view on many subjects. For example, the official view of CP is that there's liberal bias in the mainstream media, or how liberals use deceit copiously to get their ways. Another example would be an opposition to evolution. That's what I was asking. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 00:19, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I think it's too early to tell; we need to let liberal [[homophobia]] and anti-gay [[hate speech]] run its course and then look at the sources and evidence. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So liberals are pro-gay and anti-gay, and homophobic at the same time? How is homophobia a "liberal" concept? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 00:19, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:Ralph.gif|left|thumb|500px]] --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT) 
:::::''ABC News'' already reported on this, "Secret Signals: How Gay Men Cruise for Sex When Men Cruise for Sex in Public Places, Police Take Notice, Some Gays Say It's Unfair" [http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3534199&page=1] This appears to be related to [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]]. The article quotes Steve Sanders, a lawyer and gay rights activist, "Citizens have a right not to confront lewd activity in public places, but if there is evidence that a sting is motivated by anti-gay animus, that may represent a more troubling issue." The article goes on to advertise restrooms at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and websites with how-to instructions to avoid discrimination and arrest.

:::::So, this is the test to see how really compassionate liberals are. Above someone blasts Craig’s voting record; what does that have to do with any of this? I'd love to see the convoluted reasoning in this, how his "private sex life", which "is nobody's business" is connected to his hypocrisy in voting for Congressional Appropriations, or any other matter. Even if he voted for something like the Defense of Marriage Act, doesn't he (a) have the right to vote his conscience, and (b) have the responsibility to represent his constituency over any personal interest or motive? And wouldn't voting a certain way to serve some personal, self interest or motive itself be a conflict of interest worthy of condemnation? Finally, after hearing for more than a decade now that "what a person does in their private sex life is nobodies business", the writer above calls Craig a hypocrite. I'll lay a $10 bet that same writer was a defender of Clinton, and spoke harshly of Republican House managers. Care to carry the discussion further on hypocrisy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:04, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::OOOooo, let's. First of all, I want my ten dollars. ("Oh sure, prove it," says Rob, which just goes to show how safe his accusation was to make.) I "blasted" his voting record, in that I said it painted him as a hypocrite to vote one way and behave in another. So yeah, I'm down with a further discussion of hypocrisy. How is his behavior NOT hypocritical? AND BEFORE YOU TRY AND GO THERE - me calling him a hypocrite is not me defending a homosexual lifestyle. He wants to be against homosexuality, that's entirely his right and I'm not trying to stop him. But to legislate against "lewd behaviors" and then to conduct said behaviors himself is... hang on, there's a word somebody just tried to tar me with, what was it... ponder ponder think think... right, hypocritical.

::::::What *I* want to know, and given the absolutely crap-tastic response to my earlier post Rob gave I think an answer is in order, is why there's a need to defend the guy? Can a single Republican not do wrong without it bringing down the entire conservative establishment? What the heck is so important about Larry Craig that the point can't ever be conceded that he's a hypocrite? I've voted Republican plenty of times (don't know if it's more or less than half, counting state and local elections, but it's not insignificant) and I couldn't care less if there's a scummy Republican out there. Guy's no good, guy goes away. Same thing happens to Democrats, and it's not like... er, ... it's not like anybody tries to undermine... tries to undermine the entire party that way...

::::::Oh. Got it. I'm going back to categorizing, nobody votes for those. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-not at all impressed...''

I don't care if you're straight, gay or Klingon...sex in a public place is *NOT* acceptable.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:02, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

*Porthos: Craig did not engage in sex in public, and your suggestion that he did is an exaggeration. What? would you prefer he engaged in private sexual activity in the workplace, as Clinton did, with a subordinate while on the time clock? Would that make it acceptable & excusable?

*Aziraphale: ''to legislate against "lewd behaviors"''; cite one instance in the voting record where this occurred. In fact, cite one instance in any federal legislation where this is the purview of the federal government.
*''Can a single Republican not do wrong''; isn't this a bit hypocritical, I thought homosexuality was normal and acceptable? What's "wrong" with it? even ''ABC News'' went out of its way to publicize entrapment of gays for "being themselves" is "unfair".
*''painted him as a hypocrite to vote one way and behave in another''; cite one instance, any example, to support this claim.
*And finally, you have not addressed the simple underlying claim the Craig is not at liberty to allow personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record. And your advocacy of such standards is a bit hypocritical itself, don't you think? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Dude, the point is not whether homosexuality is wrong. The point is that he was accused of signalling for sex in a public place. The ABC article you cited says that clearly - the public has the right not to walk on any lewd activity going on in a public place - which was the next step if Craig wasn't caught (hence Portho's comment regarding sex in a public place). BTW, the workplace is still a public place, and you need to do better than drag Clinton into an argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. And with regards to allowing "personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record" - I believe that's the basis of accusations of hypocrisy for liberals; see last month's "Breaking News" about an anti-gun democrat shooting a would-be thief. In that case his "personal" agenda is to shoot people, but by your logic, he has taken the high ground and took an anti-gun stance, against his personal motivations. I can't see how one could apply that definition of hypocrisy only to one party. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:28, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''Two wrongs don't make a right.'' And this is not hypocricy?
:*The ''ABC News'' article says, "In an effort to curb lewd acts in public — or as some gays argue, '''in an effort to persecute gay men''' — undercover police began sting operations..." Apparantly societal and systemic [[homophobia]] is operative, according to [[gay rights]] activists, in this case. The article continues, "police would have to prove that actions such as foot tapping were known signals....What constitutes probable cause?..... police officers would have to produce evidence to say here is how we can say with certainty this is was really a lewd act"
:*''with regards to allowing "personal motivations and a personal agenda to dictate his voting record'', this relates more to accusations such as Bush got us into Iraq to benefit his friends in big oil, IOW, the record of elected officials, not an example such as you cite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::1. [[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380 Ok.]] 2.Don't put words in my mouth, it's a filthy habit that can lead to mad cow disease. I didn't say that homosexuality was wrong. His hypocrisy is wrong, and his commission of a crime is wrong. I frankly don't care how the guy wants to have sex. Since you're asking me to do your research for you re: his voting record, please help me out by showing your previous support for the political bias of MSM and your attacks on those who say the MSM supports values outside the norm. Otherwise, explain to me why I should care what ABC News says? 3. Please don't speak in gibberish, CP hasn't installed a language translation module as yet. I'll let you win your $10 back if you can successfully diagram your sentence that begins "And finally" without uncovering one or more errors that makes it impossible to parse.

::That said, you say ''"And your advocacy of such standards is a bit hypocritical itself, don't you think?"'' No, I don't think, and if you think it you're delusional. What personal belief, or set of actions, can I lay claim to that run counter to any ''professed'' belief of mine or public statement that I've uttered? Come on Rob, lay it out for me, step by step: how has [[User:Aziraphale]] been hypocritical? You lay it out clearly and I'll a) publicly apologize to you and b) leave you alone except for those times when you hypothetically might ask me to speak with you. Don't expect me to just accept whatever you say, though, if it doesn't stand up you'll be deservedly ridiculed for trying to hang false accusations around my neck to win an argument by any means necessary.

::This also doesn't change the subject, by the way. How is Craig *not* at the very least, a liar? You read the officer's report (which is available to be read, not just rumored about) and there is NO WAY to believe anything other than that Craig was following LONG established methods for sussing out... well, frankly, gay sex in a public men's room. Why does this need defending? Shoo him on and elect a new Republican to take his place, or whatever Idahoans want. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-You can say "whoops" now...''

:::Rob S, I'm replying in the style of your defense of Craig - which also doesn't have anything to do with Bush - unless your view only applies to elected officials, as once they get that position, they're above hypocrisy?
:::How is "two wrongs don't make a right" a hypocrisy? Elaborate, please.
:::Tell me, how does someone mistakenly plead guilty (mind you, it's not a no-contest. It implies admission of guilt)? If he's confident he didn't signal for sex, he would've pleaded otherwise, instead of pleading guilty, then say that was a mistake; then proceed to argue with the arresting officer how he was trying to pick up a piece of paper. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:56, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Ok, let's not parse and drag this out. Let's simply compare the Clinton case, ''where a sexaul act actually did occur''. Clinton survived in office, despite negative publicity & condemnation.

We can go back & forth on hypocricy all day. Bottomline, no one has connected the alleged rumors of Craig being homosexual to his voting record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:09, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:Well, not really. I'm pretty sure you cannot apply your definition of hypocrisy without being hypocritical (unless it's under your definition as well - now my head hurts). And you still haven't answered my question regarding "two wrongs don't make a right". How can that be hypocrisy, when it is simply a statement regarding debate conduct?
:Ok... Clinton survived in office... how does that relate to what we're talking about? No comment was made on whether Craig will finish his term... And I've already stated that Clinton was wrong (I mean, come on, sex with an intern at the workplace? That guy needs a spanking), and bringing that up doesn't make Craig right in asking for sex. (As to whether a sexual act "actually" occurred, try using that defense in undercover prostitution stings.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, let's cut to the quick on this, Should Clinton have been removed from office for his conduct, yes or no? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:35, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Senate didn't seem to think so.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:39, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I think most definitely, he should have been fired, just like any other workplace. (Haha, I suddenly have an image of 300 million Americans doing the simultaneous Trump Cobra "you're fired" hand gesture.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:44, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

'''Reponding to Rob from 14:09, not anything that follows after'''
::Sorry, Rob, I appreciate that you want to back down but your "bottom line" is wrong. [[http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00380 Here's the same link I provided earlier.]] If you're having problems understanding the link, let me know and I'll spell it out for you.

::And you're trying to change what we were actually talking about: I said a)Craig was a hypocrite, and b)not worth defending because he doesn't stand for anything larger than himself. You decided to lay on the "nuh unh, ''you're'' a hypocrite" defense. You say "let's not parse and drag this out," but you're the one who decided to lay waste with the accusations. You don't seem to like that your tactic roused a spirited defense, but too bad - you accuse someone of something that isn't true, you get to swallow the consequences.

::But to be more courteous to you than you have been to me, I will continue to directly respond to what you say. Yes, by all means, let's compare the Clinton case. Clinton lied about what he did. He perjured himself. That is a very bad thing. Craig solicited sex in a public men's room; skip the homosexuality if you want, this wouldn't be any less illegal if somehow it had been a woman in that men's room stall. He committed a crime, which he pleaded "guilty" to. That is a very bad thing. You've apparently conceded my ABC News point, and my "Aziraphale is a hypocrite" point, so here's another chance to win back the $10 you owe me for betting I was a Clinton supporter who complained about Republican House managers. This time, I want you to show me that you maintained a "live and let live" attitude during the Clinton impeachment saga, or even easier, that you think the whole thing was overblown in retrospect. I've been pretty nice about these bets, I don't even hold you accountable for the ones you've lost other than your original proposition.

::If "let's not go back and forth all day" was some kind of milquetoast apology, please clarify. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:45, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes please spell it out; Craig appears to have voted "yes" to the Defense Appropriation Act that included "Don't Ask Don't Tell", unless I'm reading it wrong.

:::Clinton lied under oath, which was an impeachment charge. Lying under oath did not "rise to the level" of removal from office. Craig did precisely the opposite: plead guilty, and not ''nolo contendre'', to a sex-related charge. Guilty implies intent, which by biblical standards is the same as the act itself, as in the Clinton case. Craig did not "lie" about the guilty plea, he expressed '''regret''' that he did.

:::So apparantly at this point, lying about sex does not rise to the level of removal from office, but being a victim of institutional [[homophobic]] laws warrants character assassination. That seems to be the status of the case. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Rob, I'm not really sure I see the parallel you're trying to draw between this case and Clinton. Whether, morally, Clinton should have been removed from office is a wholly separate matter from the Senate vote that acquitted him. Legality (or legislation) does not imply morality or vice versa.

Also, I'm '''really''' confused about your use of the term "homophobic". Let's put it this way...I'm 100% conservative when it comes to some things, like the right to bear arms. But I'm pretty liberal (or libertarian?) when it comes to social issues like private sexual expression. But even *I* don't think that sex in public places is okay. The laws against public lewdness are not homophobic; they apply equally to men and women and straight and gay.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Too much blathering, unrelated to improving the [[Main Page]] or the (now unprotected) [[Larry Craig]] article. Any reason I shouldn't move all of this talk to [[Conservapedia:Views of Larry Craig]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:50, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

:That makes sense to me.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:51, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T19:00:45Z

Porthos:

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence change?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::What? Your saying the Bible had it wrong, but we're got it right now? Or that we need to go back to harems and the age of 'consent' being 13? --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm saying that either it is wrong for a 13 year old to marry and have sex, or it is not wrong. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Back then, none of them would probably have thought marrying at 13 is wrong. Whether this is considered an issue of morality is up to you - the shift into older age of consent, etc. could be results of increased longevity. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Why would/should longevity affect the age of consent? Was a 13 year old four hundred years ago somehow more able to make an informed decision than a 13 year old today?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::In a society where most people die at the age of 30, it makes all the sense to get married early, so you spend longer time of your life to raise your kid. I also believe that kids today are pampered. They are way less prepared for the real world than 13-year-olds back then. So to answer your question: Yes, 13-year-olds four hundred years ago are more able to make informed decisions in their world than 13-year-olds today can in today's world. (And morality is still out of the equation in my reply. Age of marriage is social convention.) [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::That's a pretty good response. But, if 13 year olds were capable of dealing with adult responsibilities and parenthood in that world, what is the reason we don't we raise them that same way now and give them even MORE time to raise kids?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 15:00, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, do you actually care about this issue? Or did you raise it only to "throw stones" at CP for imagined hypocrisy?

In any case, the play is rarely assigned to schoolchildren at the age you claim to care about. It is a high-school or college-level work of literature.

And it's not just about the two "lovers" having an affair. There is also the theme, which many students would be more interested in, of young people '''from different parts of town''' forming a friendship which adults frowned upon. Hence the popularity of "[[West Side Story]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:I do care about it. It's an issue that I believe people rarely think about, and it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. Why do sexual mores change over time? What are the real reasons a society selects its moral standards? These are fascinating questions and, I believe, worthy of discussion. I don't have a terrifically powerful stance on one side or the other; I simply enjoy debating various issues for the intellectual exercise.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the mentions of death in R&J - the "and let me die" passage mentioned above along with "Indeed, I never shall be satisfied / With Romeo, till I behold him--dead--" These are both suggestions of ''la petite morte'' rather than the cessation of life. The question if these innuendos are appropriate is another matter, but it is important to understand the puns and the wordplay that was used in Shakespeare's plays. This wordplay and innuendo can be seen from the very opening with the passage of Sampson that begins "Ay, the heads of the maids." Much of this was explained by my religious high school freshman English teacher (after checking the hallway for nuns). The innuendos were likely designed to help hold the audience's attention in original performances, and also had high schoolers point and giggle at various passages... and we actually read it once we realized that rather than going for the cliff notes. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Just the type of thing to appeal to disaffected [[Goth]] death-cult teens - we don't want to encourage them. Expose our children to wholesomeness! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Related thoughts ==
How old was Mary? Some theories put her at 13 or 14.
The [[Song of Solomon]] is much more explicit than Romeo and Juliet.
The story of [[Bathsheba]] and King David's cover up starting at II Samuel 11 makes the drama in Romeo and Juliet appear to be innocent fun between two teenagers.
Are these topics not appropriate to be discussed either? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: ''How old was Mary?'' Irrelevant: She was a virgin. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Virgin or not (and depending on how one translates ''parthenos''[http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3933&Version=kjv] there is still the question of how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph. R&J weren't having premarital sex - they were married. Yes they were married, at the age of 13 - but then how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well...she was certainly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. There are, however, schools of thought in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches that maintain her "Perpetual Virginity".--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T18:40:31Z

Porthos:

While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that, by its raison d'etre, includes young children?

''Romeo and Juliet'' is a rather sexually charged play, and let us not forget that the protagonists are children, Juliet herself being thirteen years old. While no sex explicitly takes place in the action of the play, the protagonists are secretly married and it is not difficult to imagine what typically happens on a wedding night.

Should we condone this play, let alone discuss it, or not? If so, why? If not, why not?

==Yea==

It's been around for over 400 years. I seriously doubt it's our place to condone it. [[User:Ozark|Ozark]] 16:26, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough, but should we here at CP be discussing it? There is an [[Romeo and Juliet|article]] about it, and we strive to keep our entries family-friendly. Is a sexually charged drama involving a 13 year old girl family-friendly?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:39, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::I would hardly call it sexually charged. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:41, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::It is not sexually charged in an open and obvious way, but it would have been impossible for it to be so in its day. Shakespeare uses some creative means of injecting sexual innuendo into the play. For example, take Juliet's line: "O happy dagger! This is thy sheath. There rust, and let me die." The dagger/sheath metaphor is glaring. Not only that, but it sexualizes death in a rather disturbing way. And what about the fact that a 13 year old girl gets married (and presumably consummates her marriage)?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:50, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::My great grandma got married at 13 and was married for 74 years. People married much younger in the past. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 13:20, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::So are we saying that morals change with time? Today I doubt we would find an American parent who would allow a 13 year old to marry; we conservatives also strive to stand opposed to the liberals' concept of "moral relativism". Something is either right or wrong and that concept does not change. How do we synthesize that concept with this?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:38, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You know, I think maybe morals have changed a little over time. Selling your daughter into slavery isn't considered moral any more, and outside of Muslim countries, neither is one man having more than three wives. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::That's an extremely dangerous position to take. If we start saying that morality can change depending on time and place, then we are leaving the flood gates wide open to moral relativism. How can the morality of sexual innocence change?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:44, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::What? Your saying the Bible had it wrong, but we're got it right now? Or that we need to go back to harems and the age of 'consent' being 13? --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:55, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I'm saying that either it is wrong for a 13 year old to marry and have sex, or it is not wrong. Both cannot be true.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:10, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Back then, none of them would probably have thought marrying at 13 is wrong. Whether this is considered an issue of morality is up to you - the shift into older age of consent, etc. could be results of increased longevity. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 14:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:Why would/should longevity affect the age of consent? Was a 13 year old four hundred years ago somehow more able to make an informed decision than a 13 year old today?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:27, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Porthos, do you actually care about this issue? Or did you raise it only to "throw stones" at CP for imagined hypocrisy?

In any case, the play is rarely assigned to schoolchildren at the age you claim to care about. It is a high-school or college-level work of literature.

And it's not just about the two "lovers" having an affair. There is also the theme, which many students would be more interested in, of young people '''from different parts of town''' forming a friendship which adults frowned upon. Hence the popularity of "[[West Side Story]]". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:I do care about it. It's an issue that I believe people rarely think about, and it certainly makes for an interesting discussion. Why do sexual mores change over time? What are the real reasons a society selects its moral standards? These are fascinating questions and, I believe, worthy of discussion. I don't have a terrifically powerful stance on one side or the other; I simply enjoy debating various issues for the intellectual exercise.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the mentions of death in R&J - the "and let me die" passage mentioned above along with "Indeed, I never shall be satisfied / With Romeo, till I behold him--dead--" These are both suggestions of ''la petite morte'' rather than the cessation of life. The question if these innuendos are appropriate is another matter, but it is important to understand the puns and the wordplay that was used in Shakespeare's plays. This wordplay and innuendo can be seen from the very opening with the passage of Sampson that begins "Ay, the heads of the maids." Much of this was explained by my religious high school freshman English teacher (after checking the hallway for nuns). The innuendos were likely designed to help hold the audience's attention in original performances, and also had high schoolers point and giggle at various passages... and we actually read it once we realized that rather than going for the cliff notes. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:36, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==Nay==

There are great works of art involving nudity, which are sexually charged and have been deemed inappropriate for schooling-age Conservapedia users; why should a play be any different? It will be understood as being about under-age sex; and explaining that this was 'acceptable' in the past might be seen as a green light by modern teens! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
::They suffer a lot and die at the end. I think most modern kids MIGHT be able to figure out they're not exactly supposed to be role-models. --[[User:ZackT|ZackT]] 12:54, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:: Just the type of thing to appeal to disaffected [[Goth]] death-cult teens - we don't want to encourage them. Expose our children to wholesomeness! [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 12:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Related thoughts ==
How old was Mary? Some theories put her at 13 or 14.
The [[Song of Solomon]] is much more explicit than Romeo and Juliet.
The story of [[Bathsheba]] and King David's cover up starting at II Samuel 11 makes the drama in Romeo and Juliet appear to be innocent fun between two teenagers.
Are these topics not appropriate to be discussed either? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

: ''How old was Mary?'' Irrelevant: She was a virgin. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 13:21, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Virgin or not (and depending on how one translates ''parthenos''[http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3933&Version=kjv] there is still the question of how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph. R&J weren't having premarital sex - they were married. Yes they were married, at the age of 13 - but then how old was Mary when she was betrothed to Joseph? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:30, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well...she was certainly a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. To my knowledge there is nothing in the Bible that explicitly states that she remained a virgin throughout her entire life. There are, however, schools of thought in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches that maintain her "Perpetual Virginity".--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:32, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

[[category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T18:27:57Z

Porthos:

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T17:32:05Z

Porthos:

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T17:10:28Z

Porthos:

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-30T16:44:38Z

Porthos:

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-29T17:44:21Z

Porthos:

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-29T17:38:36Z

Porthos:

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-28T20:50:21Z

Porthos:

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-28T20:39:51Z

Porthos:

Debate:Is Romeo and Juliet appropriate?

2007-08-28T19:58:35Z

Porthos: New page: While it is certainly a great work and undoubtedly worthy of academic study (and just plain old watching for leisure), I wonder if it is an appropriate topic for discussion in a forum that...

Talk:Liberal

2007-08-28T18:15:03Z

Porthos:

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Strong" foreign policy ==

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years?
If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? [[user:Tanktunker]]

*I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous [[Liberal]] said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
**He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. {{Unsigned|User:Tanktunker}}

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110419&oldid=104466]. We could always bring back "''opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy" <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

with the references, of course. <references/>

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
:Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of [[deceit]] as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Someone explain to me... ==

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

:One of the [[liberal]] views is [[environmentalism]]. Certainly [[Greenpeace]] engages in ''environmentalism'' and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

I think that's a little oversimplified - I happen to have a very old and good friend, a rancher who lives in Montana. He's a Republican, gun carrying, NRA member, pro-life, chruch-going, and a real American Man's Man. Yet he's a keen supporter of Greenpeace and the NRDC, because he's also a huge lover of nature - he's very keen on the reintroduction of the wolf, he advocates banning off-road vehicle use in most rural areas and has similar views on skidoos, he drives a Prius because he doesn't want to pollute the atmosphere or contribute to global warming, he generates his own windpower. I think people see the world in much broader shades of gray than the two boxes of Liberal and Conservative you seem so keen to put them in. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 18:58, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:That's a non sequiter. You're assuming Greenpeace is an organization concerned about the environment. We usually ban disinformation activists/specialists. Right now you are in violation of 90/10 rule -- 2/3 of your edits are meaningless talk such as above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:47, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Why is it a non sequitor? The comment above mine says Greenpeace is a liberal organization, and I'm simply saying my Republican, God-fearing rancher friend wouldn't call himself a liberal if you paid him! He's a very 'typical Conservapedia' person in many ways, but he loves the environment, that's all - I'm simply saying there's people like you, who wouldn't agree with you about Greenpeace. And regarding my edits, I'm a new user around here, and I have contributed one edit to Jean-Marie Le Pen, which was reverted, causing two comments, and this comment here. So that's 75/25, surely?

Finally, I'm not even a member of any environmental organizations myself! [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 21:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== Definition? ==

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal ''is''. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The do all believe in one thing, I find: [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice [[deceit]]." - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you spend way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. [[User:Order]] 24 July

::We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look it up in the histroy of this article. It used to have a definition and a proper introduction, and IMHO it used to be better. Now it is merely a list of policies Conservapedia editors don't like, together with a list of organization they don't like either. Such lists can be useful as illustration, but without a proper definition it is somewhat meager. [[User:Order]] 24 July, 11:50
::How do we handle, for example, anti-Bush American liberals who have been carrying water for [[al-Qaeda]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:19, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::: If anyone provides material support for terrorism, it a matter of law enforcement. That how you handle it. The definition of liberals, however, should be more general than the current political mud fight. This tries to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. And as an encyclopedia, it is customary to start an article with a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:00
::::Something needs to be said about leadership and the propaganda war. Al-Qaede certainly has gained a great victory with the loss of support behind the America leader. Yet all the liberals efforts will go unappreciated, and they've gained nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Obviously you are very angry at liberals, but what has this to do with a definition of liberalism. I think to define liberalism as the movement RobS (or Conservapedia) despises would make a poor definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 14:45
::::I'm not expressing any personal sentiment, I am a witness and chronicler of events, nothing more. We can't deny what we've seen with our own two eyes now, can we? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Sorry, but you are expressing a personal sentiment. However, if it is not just a sentiment and you have objective proof that a liberal or any other person is providing material support to al qaida you should inform the authorities. Just witnessing and chronicling it is serious neglect on your part. However, calling someone a "water carrier of al-qaida" sounds like a sentiment. And there is nothing wrong with that, but don't pretend that it isn't.

::: I get the impression that rather than think constructively about what an appropriate definition of liberalism would be (like the one in this version [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&oldid=93410]), you want to discuss the behavior of certain liberals (and you probably mean certain democrats) who in your eyes failed in the fight against al-qaida. If you want to discuss current political figures, feel free to do so; do it in the article about them, or go go to a blog. What this article is missing is a definition. [[User:Order]] 24 July 15:15

::::I am refering to the fact that the United States is at war. A war, as all wars do, requires leadership. President Bush enjoyed popular support in this war as the leader. Through a series of events, President Bush's popular supprt as leader in this war has been eroded. Liberals have famously taken to being his most vehement critic, at least in the English language. The net result has only served to further [[al Qaeda]]'s stated aims, which have not changed since the mid 1990's, and were fully exposited shortly after 9/11 in the English language.

::::For all the liberal critics efforts to destroy George W. Bush's effective leadership and popular support in the war, what ever the aims were, they will largely go unappreciated by al-Qeada, and will not buy them any special favors. But al-Qaeda certainly will make use of their hard work.

::::This was immensely foolish on the part of liberal critics of George W. Bush's leadership in the war effort, because under our system Bush's leadership was limited in time anyway. Attempting to jumpstart the war effort with a leader more acceptable to liberals will be extremely difficult, because once again, their sincerity and loyalty to the cause of preserving Western Civilization has been called into question.

::::So, I make no summary or conclusions, only offer some independent observations of the events of the past several years. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
:::You do offer conclusions. Surely Bush support eroded, but you suggest in the second paragraph that Bush leadership was effective, and that it was the liberal critics that destroyed it, and furthermore you conclude at the end that that to "jumpstart the war effort" will be difficult and you question their "loyalty to the cause of preserving Western civilization". I can appreciate your effort to describe you observation and position calmly in well formed sentences, but just because you are not using vernacular, doesn't mean that it is not expressing sentiments.

:::But despite you effort to calmly explain your remark about the water carriers of al-qaeda, we got not an inch closer to the actual problem, namely that this article has no proper definition. We just got sidetracked by your remarks concerning the current political situation. [[User:Order]] 25 July, 9:45 (AEST)
<--
OK. Good points.

This opening from the version you cite, "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," How does favoring "personal freedom in all its forms" square with "income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation"? Right now loss of these personal freedoms is being debated in Congress:
*A $500 per child tax increase.
* A 55% death tax.
* A 13% tax increase for many small businesses.
* A 33% tax increase on capital gains.
* A 164% tax increase on dividends.

Source [http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/CA_072307_walbergtaxhikes.pdf] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: The phrase "someone who favors personal freedom in all its forms," stems from the paragraph on "classical liberlism", and that paragraph is still there, now at the end, and still very much in the same form. And i think that the current paragraph on "classical liberalism" isn't that bad, and can remain as it is.

:What we are looking for is a definition that characterizes of post-war US liberalism. It used to say

:: '' Modern liberalism, based upon the inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning, can mean different things at different times, as can the term '' "conservative." ''The following views are generally, though not always, supported by American liberals today: In the postwar period, ''liberal'' Democrats fought for equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom, which are all true liberal causes. At the same time, many Democrats supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. This illustrates the pitfall of assuming that the term "Democrat" is a synonym for'' "liberal."

:This definition has some problems, first in that it uses wooly language ("inherent conjunctures of its fluid reasoning"), and is also judgmental ("pitfalls"). So if we could find something that is neutral, stays clear from euphemisms and derision, we'd be on a way to a proper definition.

:How some something like:
:: ''Modern liberalism in the US is typically associated with the left of the political spectrum. The word "Liberal" can mean different things at different times, but is often used as synonym for "Democrat". In the postwar period, "Liberals" advocated equal rights between races and sexes, and also for sexual freedom. At the same time they supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism.''

Feel free to start with your own definition. [[User:Order]] 25 July 11:50

:::If you're not in sales, you should be, cause you've come close to selling me. That language is good, but let me voice just two points. First, the post war era is over, and we're now in the second decade of the post-Soviet era (some debate on whether the Cold War is over or not, so let's use "post-Soviet"). Secondly, liberalism has changed noticeably in the post-Soviet era, why, I couldn't tell you, but it has changed. All we can do is observe it's basic tenets and principals and report on them. For one thing, some elements have embraced varying anti-Semitic and one world globalist conspiracy theories. Some make no pretense of discarding human rights and democracy. For many, liberal principals have no meaning other than being equated with specific homosexual acts (and we have enough evidence in CP to verify that). Clintonism gave us some valuable observations: while Clinton sold welfare queens & labor unions down the river with Welfare Reform & NAFTA, those two main pilars of liberalism were only to happy to re-elect him in 1996. Does this mean liberals are now such old stodgy conservative reactionaries, so unwilling to change, that they're grateful to be treated like dirt? or there isn't any intelligent basis for it anymore? I don't know.

:::I'd like to avoid using words like "tolerant," "open-minded" or "broadminded," because that will only necessitate the view of critics. And as you've probably seen by now I sometimes use a sledge hammar when doing criticism. In thinking about it, "some forms of personal freedom" is much more expressive of liberalism than "all forms of personal freedom." FWIW, let's go ahead with your idea. It's unlocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:15, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

== taxpayer funded abortion ==

I think the statement that liberals support "taxpayer funded abortion" is misleading in that it suggests that liberals specifically focus on funding for abortion, whereas this is just part of the way they think of it. This could be improved by splitting it into two parts:
#Abortion as legitimate medical procedure
#State funding of medical procedures (even controversial ones such as abortion).
[[User:Tester|Tester]] 18:48, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
:You're not serious, are you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:10, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, [[Deceit|Liberals]] also focus on several types of abortion and racial genocide as well. I agree, those issues are only a small portion of their "thinking". --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:Lol.gif‎ ]]

*Rob, feel free to "borrow" my LOL for all such posts. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
:Great! Will do.
:"Taxpayer funded abortion" works fine. It's called "log rolling." There are Social Conservatives and there are Economic Conservaitves, and "taxpayer funded abortion" unites the two in common cuase. Liberals have "eco-racism" (I kid you not. See here [http://web.archive.org/web/20000819003459/http://www.alternatives.com/libs/poledge.htm] "Eco-Racism cberlet pra.reports") "Eco-racism" is where white racist suburbanites drive gas guzzlers through the inner-city on their way to work, however their ''real'' intention, according the highly regarded leftist think tank, Political Research Associates, is to [[exterminate]] minority popultations with carbon monoxide fumes blown out of thier tail pipes. This stroke of genius, of melding two separate constituancies, Blacks and Environmentalists, into common cause to combat the evil white Republicans, is an example of liberal "log rolling."

:So, while libs have "eco-racism," we have "taxpayer funded abortion." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:24, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

*I didn't even want to mention Planned Parenthood...cause the truth upsets the Liberals sooooo much! ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

: How many Liberals believe in this "Eco-racism" trash, honestly? And will Conservapedia have an article about that? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:23, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::Eco-racism just didn't get the response intended, and now its auther has tried to hide copies of it, and expunge any reference to it from his website. But it does make for a starting point here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Chip_Berlet] in Conservapedia about one of Wikipedia's most treasured "expert" contributors (SlimVirgin refers to him as "highly regarded," and Fred Bauder calls him "a valuable editor"). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:36, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah. Seems like a fringe nutjob to me... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:38, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
::::A fringe nutjob who wrote for the [[Yippies]] ''Overthrow'' publication, and the [[Guardian]] newspaper, which was founded by a few [[KGB]] operatives and hired a reporter who actually took part in torturing American [[POW]]s during the Korean War. Yes, this fringe nutjob not only has a record of writing for marginal, fringe & extremist publications, is the inventor of bizarre conspiracy theories, this same fringe nutjob is in fact Wikipedia's Gatekeeper of political content--the person assigned by Jimbo & the Foundation to judge acceptable politcal content and sourcing for the information your children get all the Google hits on. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:12, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Source? I like sources. Can I get a source? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:38, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::*"Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)" [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]
:::::*“Right-wing Conspiracists Make Inroads into Left,” The [[Guardian]] (NY), September 11, 1991, p. 3." cited from Berlet's own webstie [http://www.publiceye.org/berlet/berlet_articles.html]; Conservapedia's article on the [[Guardian#post-60s_radicalism]] gives you everything you need to know about ''Guardian'', cited from a mainstream publisher (Prometheus Books), [http://www.questia.com/library/book/nazis-communists-klansmen-and-others-on-the-fringe-political-extremism-in-america-by-john-george-laird-wilcox.jsp''Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe: Political Extremism in America''], pg. 125.
:::::*"Chip is an investigative journalist used by other journalists for their research, '''and is highly regarded''' as such. I've also seen him around Wikipedia making a real effort (in a few cases, more of an effort that I would have made) to be fair to people he disagrees with politically. '''He's definitely a credible source for WP''' and has been used as such in several articles. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]] 02:00, August 4, 2005 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Roots_of_anti-Semitism&diff=20232935&oldid=20232665]
:::::*"a valuable Wikipedia editor" Fred Bauder Sun Dec 4 15:37:38 UTC 2005 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-December/033813.html]

== Another definition of liberal ==

In international politics liberalism has a slightly different meaning than in American politics. May I request that this be added somewhere please? Liberal is referenced on the [[realism]] page, so we need to alleviate the confusion :)

:In [[international politics]], liberal is a term which describes an actor whose [[foreign policy]] methods are focused on institutions and [[international law]]s instead of [[political power]]. They believe that there is a complex [[interdependence]] between states, and that there is no hierarchy of importance among international issues. The [[United Nations]] is an example of a liberal political organization.

:The opposite of a liberal is a [[realist]].

Thanks!! [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:59, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:"an actor whose methods...etc" "complex interdependence between states" (really? who wudda thunk it...) "no hieracrhy of importance" IOW, peace isn't anymore of a priority than war, or famine relief is no more important than extermination and slavery.

:Sheeesh, why do we get all these types? Can you give an example of this type of "actor"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:12, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well, an actor in international politics is rarely actually an individual, it is any organization which makes or is involved with the foreign policy. But I'm not just making this stuff up, I basically copied the definition straight from my IP class notes. Some examples of liberal actors would be the UN, as well as many countries in Europe. The European Union is a textbook definition of a liberal organization. The US is basically a textbook definition of a realist, the opposite of a liberal. We (meaning the country's leadership with indirect influence from the citizens) generally believe that power and unilateralism are better (more effective) than institutions and international law. The USSR would be another great example of a realist state.

::I realize it might seem to muddy up the definition of "liberal", but this isn't a new definition for a different ''type'' of liberal. It's applying the same definition (more or less) to a different ''level'' of politics. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:45, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sounds like more double speak to muddy the waters. Liberals, world-wide, tend toward socialism/socialistic thinking and policies. That the State should regulate and control more. That much is universal. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:50, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::Eeeeeeh ''kind of''. Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics. For example, no country has as part of it's foreign policy a "support of affirmative action" because it doesn't make sense in world-level politics. The IP definition of liberal also has ''nothing'' to do with socialism, that's again a lower level of politics. You could maybe argue that they want more government control... but that's not exactly right either. I wish they had invented a new term, because the two "liberals" are distinct from each other.

::Just pretend that the IP liberal is actually some new word, like "miberal". If you go up to my definition and replace "liberal" with "miberal" it gets the message across better. "Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess! I hope this makes sense. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:05, 22 August 2007 (EDT) ''PS: Just be glad I'm leaving the definition general. We could get into neoliberalism and transnationalism and REALLY get things interesting! :)''

:::Considering it was [[Alger Hiss]], [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], and [[Josef Stalin]] who created the [[United Nations]], [[liberal]] may be the correct word to ascribe to it. However then, we must therefore incorporate its history into the United Nations, and an understanding of what the word liberal means. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:37, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Unfortunately I don't have any information about the etymology of the word liberal. I don't know if it is related to the creation of the United Nations. I will see if there's a discussion in my IP books anywhere. Either way, they are still two different meanings, even if one meaning branched from the other in the past. Go through the article and you will find that much of it simply does not apply to world-level interactions. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

*Per Andy: Liberal = [[Deceit]]. That's good enough for me! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's fine [[rhetoric]], but it's not accurate. It probably doesn't bother anybody on this website but me (there aren't a whole lot of political theory nuts in the world), but getting nuances like this correct are important if you want to be an accurate encyclopedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:30, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::You seem to be describing a paid bureaucrat, however the "methods are focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" is a little bit suspicious. And what term would describe an actor who rejects "no hierarchy of importance among international issues"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:48, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bureaucrats though, tend to be very "conservative" i.e. "resistant to change" as a group in whatever political machine they find themselves in. A "conservative bureaucrat" in a Marxist regime would resist efforts to bring his country's policies in-line with an open and free market system. Conversely, a "liberal bureaucrat" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), in the same regime would be pushing for something closer to what US conservatives would like. Maybe it's time to chuck this "definition" for something workable. [[User Talk:Samwell|Samwell]] 19:43, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Luckily, Rob, I brought my text books with me to sell off... and luckily they haven't sold yet :) Here are some quotes which should clear things up, and prove I'm not just inventing this stuff! (from ''World Politics: the Menu for Choice'' by Russett, Starr, and Kinsella):

::::'''Power vs. international law and institutions'''
::::*"liberalism was and continues to be a reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics"
::::*"[Liberals] emphasized the benefits of collective security and the rule of international law, which prevented countries' actions."

::::'''Glossary definition'''
::::*"Liberalism - A perspective that emphasizes the importance of institutions and linkages between states for facilitating cooperation, coordination, and nonviolent modes of conflict resolution"

:::An actor who rejects a lack of a hierarchy (in other words, an actor who believes there ''is'' a higherarchy) would be a realist: realists place security above all other matters. I'm not sure what you mean by the beaurocrat comment, though. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:33, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Well, yes, this is classical liberalism; "benefits of collective security and the rule of international law" is moreless the same as a Wilsonian Democracy. This picture is however, incomplete. Because it is not a straight line from Wilson Democracy through the New Deal & post WWII institutions such as the UN or IMF. State planning intervened, and the modern idea of "liberalism" was corrupted. I haven't read enough of this stuff (your cite) to know if it makes that fact clear, or is just another fig leaf. This author evidently is David Kinsella, not to be confused with Stephan Kinsella, whose ideas I think are radically different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:21, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::I was talking with my friend who has had much more study on the subject, and she suggested I use the term [[idealist]] instead of liberal. This is an older term that means the same thing, but it's not as confusing or muddying as liberal. You are right, liberalism and idealism are similar, and they have similar roots, but they aren't the same thing. Both overlap, but they have different scopes and applications. Should I take this over to [[idealist]] then? (And yes, it is David; I don't know anything much about Stephan). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 11:38, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Actually, I'm not certain that would fit, here's why: "reaction to the dangers of overemphasizing power politics" and "focused on institutions and international laws instead of political power" can be very [[pragmatic]], as opposed to partisan [[ideologue]]s (conservatives tend to speak in these terms, pragmatists vs ideologues). An actor (individual or entity) who ignores partisan "power politics", and driven by pragmatism and reality, probably is not so much of an idealist. "Idealist's" are generally regarded as dreamers; yet none the less, elected and appointed offices are full of these types, and they never cease trying to convert others to thier idealism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:49, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:See, though, this is just another problem with English, not a problem with the definition. Just as there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal), there are two types of idealists (the "opposite of a realist" idealist and the "opposite of a pragmatist" idealist). (There are also two types of realists!) My book takes 2 pages to give a basic definition of liberal (including the transition from idealists to liberals) and then another 400 pages distinguishing liberal from realist. (There's also another term, "radical", which generally describes the socialist view of world politics). Repeating this entire discussion is not practical in a concise encyclopedia, so I boiled down a whole semester's study (and then some) into the definition I gave at the top of this section (aaaaaaaaaall the way up there!). That definition needs to go *somewhere*, because right now the [[realist]] article states that "The opposite of a realist is a [[liberal]]" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist. Please advise me on where I should put this information. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:06, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::Let me offer an unfair, stereotyped conjecture about Russett, Starr, and Kinsella, which I have not read and is only based upon my own personal experiences and biases: these gentlemen appear to attempting to rehabilitate 'liberalism' (to a youthful audience) using band aids, duct tape, rubber bands, and paper clips. They are attempting to put a good face upon it, and deny & sweep under the rug much of the historical record since the aftermath of the First World War. They are attempting to paint a picture that draws a straight line through the idealism of Woodrow Wilson (and that entire generation at the time of Wilson which was highly ideological, that went to war to "make the world safe for democracy"), that then in theory this idealism supported radical social & economic change during the New Deal, as well as ''more'' foreign interventionism (which the record shows, again failed). And the two points that connect the dots in this theory of a continuity of "liberal ideals" is the failed League of Nations, and the (in theory) more successful United Nations.
::All this [[disinformation]] is intended to indoctrinate young people who's political & ideological views are unmolded and unsolidified yet. So of course we have throw in the mix somewhere the notion of good guys & bad guys. Liberals of course, are always the good guys, forward thinking, kind, considerate, defenders of the oppressed, etc., and anyone who opposes them is of course, a conservative or Nazi by any other term. Never mind how we arrive at these conclusions, it is just getting there is all that matters. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:27, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Um... no, that's not really the case at all. And it's a little foil-hatted, to boot. HSK are not the only sources we used in that class, either. We also drew from ''International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues'' by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis (which is actually a compiliation, so there are at least 20 or so more authors associated with it), as well as ''East, West, North, South: Major Developments in International Relations Since 1945'' by Geir Lundstad. My national security policy book also used the same definition, but I don't remember who wrote that off the top of my head (the book is at home). We also touched on it very minorly in my political theory class, which was taught by a visitng professor. My friend who is a 8th semester poli sci major at a completely different school from me read this conversation last night and agreed that I was using the right definition, and that this is the "official" international relations use of the term.

:::You keep substituting your opinion about liberalism for a critique of the definition of liberalism. Even if you don't agree with liberals (in either sense of the word) ''liberals still exist.'' Unlike the monster under your bed, what is in your mind has no impact on what is in the real world. You also keep using your modern frame of view to interpret the past. You complain that they aren't defining Wilson's ideology correctly, because they weren't defining Wilson's ideology. Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions. R, S, and K did not draw a false line from Wilson on; they gave a breif (2 paragraph) overview of ideological history from WWI through the creation of the UN to set the ground work. That's on pages 27-8. Then on pages 28-519 they describe modern ideology.

:::If you had taken my class you would have surely seen that there was no vast left-wing conspiracy to lie to us about the true nature of liberals -- half the class was about realists as well! We were taught the definition and we were taught how to apply the definition, but there were no value judgments made. If anything, the class had a "conservative" bias, because we basically brushed off the "radical" view entirely! There simply was ''no'' sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all.

:::Is there anybody else who has studied IP back me up here? I would hate for (admittedly uninformed and biased) opinion to trump thousands of dollars worth of education. I might have to ask for a refund! ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:13, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::::That's all very good, and does answer much. Those paragraphs would be interesting to read (as everything you cite would be). But how do we reconcile somebody focused on the business of administration, i.e. "institutions and international laws," vs mindless partisan "power politics," and call them ideological dreamers instead of realists? This definition says persons focused on mindless partisan power politics are realists, and bureacratic administrators are dreamers and idealists. In either case, no generalizations would be true, because dreamers & realists exist both as bureacratic administrators ''and'' and persons "focused" on "power politics."

:::::One further note, using the term "actor," to refer to an insitution rather than individuals doesn't tell us much; we are are still dealing with persons, and not some mindless machine or animal. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:34, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

<-- Oh, I guess part of the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics". (Naturally, [[political power]] is a redlink :/) "Power" in this case would, like most of these terms, be best served by many paragraphs, but it can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack.

All of these terms have false implications in them due to the fact that they also mean something else. So idealist doesn't necessarily mean a dreamer, and a realist doesn't necessarily mean a pragmatic, at least not in the most conventional usage of these words.

The term "actor" isn't used to imply that these are mechanical organizations; it's used to group together all the people who have influence on decisions. You and I are individuals having a discussion, but if "The United States" and "Canada" have a discussion, even though there are more than one person involved, they are discussing the interest of only 2 actors -- each country. Also note that it's never President Bush making a foreign policy decision. He's affected directly by his advisors and his staff, and he's affected indirectly by the media and public opinion. So in a sense, it is a country acting, not a man. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:32, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

:I get it. Change the meaning of terms after you get committed to debate. Move the goal posts. Yes, that is liberalism.

:So, you're still arguing only dreamers go after political power, and practical people do not. Yes, this does indeed appear to be the type of liberalism taught in college text books.

:Here are two problems: (a) why do we have to redefine "liberal" since all the other terms we've discussed seem to serve just fine for the purpose and ideas they are intended to convey, and (b) what does this new definition of "liberal" stand in contrast to?

:Let's get specific: the root term, "liber", from Latin means "to free." In 1900, liberalism was very popular, because it was respected as the thought & ideology that "liberated," or freed human beings from oppressive feudal regimes which lacked the Rights of Man. Than after WWI, on a vast international scale, the idea of "freeing" human beings from theism took root. By the 1930s in the United States, people didn't only need to be freed from religious beliefs, they needed to be freed from poverty & ignorance ("ignorance" in this sense, is another codeword for religious beliefs). Being freed from poverty means people have to be made wards of the state, and give up thier rights that liberalism had won for them. Being made a ward of the state means accepting Social Security and free Healthcare, but the cost is in human freedom.

:So liberalism today seeks to liberate human beings from theism, and looks to the day a non-Christian messiah will come, heal the sick, raise the dead, give free healthcare, destroy international borders, raise the minimum wage to $8 per hour--including those who make $2 a day in Indonesian sweatshops, so without borders, and an equal distribution of poverty, we then will have true godless fraternity (to use a sexist term), liberty, and equality.

:This is to raise from the ash heap of history that great leftist utopia that collapsed in 1992. "Liberal reformer" like Gorbachav tried to save it, but "conservative Communists" opposed him in a coup and took him hostage. Both failed. So who is Yeltsin?, since Gorby holds the title as the forward looking liberal reformer? Yeltsin was just another Stresemann, Kerensky or Al-Maliki, just an interim caretaker til the true liberal messiah arrives bringing us all our free lunch and making us all slaves again. Yes, this is progressivism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

::I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such. You misunderstood the definition and I clarified it, but nothing is different than it was when I started.

::I have said nothing about dreamers (and neither have my text books). I have specifically ''denied'' that idealists are dreamers -- twice, I believe. And even if "idealist" ''did'' mean "dreamer" you've got it backwards! Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate doesn't mean the same think as what you seem to think it does).

::I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of [[liberal]] ''does not apply to the world level of politics''. "taxpayer-funded abortion", "same-sex marriage", "affirmative action", "political correctness", "the Fairness Doctrine", "censorship of prayer in classrooms" (need I go on?) are all NATIONAL issues. They make NO SENSE on the international level. (b) the opposite of a liberal is a realist!! Still!

::What the heck is with your anti liberal historical rant?! It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and as I said before, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS.

::I am continually told that Conservapedia is a meritocracy. What qualifications do you have, may I ask? If Conservapdia wants to be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" we really need to get past all the rhetoric, and rely on people who have studied the subjects. Otherwise we seriously need a name change. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:15, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
:::*(a) So, "the opposite of a liberal is a realist"
:::*(b) "Realists are the ones who 'go after political power'"
:::*(c) "liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
:::*(d) Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power"
:::*(e) "I never once changed the definition"
:::*(f) "the confusion is that by "political power" I didn't mean "mindless power politics".... "Power" in this case would... can be simplified to "the use or display of force"
:::*(g) "liberal does not apply to the world level of politics....make NO SENSE on the international level."
:::*(h) "In international politics, liberal is a term which describes an actor whose foreign policy methods are focused on institutions and international laws"
:::*(i) "Stop putting your own hatred of liberalism in front of FACTS. "
:::Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning. You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical. You claim only "realists" are focued on political power. You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense." You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power."' You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning.
:::In this lengthy discussion, we have had absolutely no disagreement on any of the terms both of us have used, save one. I point to it historic meaning, which is known, accepted, and has a record. You propose to redefine the term because it, "make NO SENSE on the international level." You go on to say, "Terms change their meaning over time (especially political labels), and you are making faulty conclusions based on today's definitions." Earlier you will recall, I noted, "somewhere we have throw the notion of good guys & bad guys in the mix." Evidently we have reached that point, where terms have changed their meaning so we have to throw good guys & bad guys in the mix, and the wrong good guys are being called bad guys.
:::So to set set the world right-side up again, we need to redefine terms. And of course it is only one term we need to redefine, liberal.
:::Can we agree, this pretty much summarizes what we have discussed? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Pw sign 44.gif|right]]
::::Unfortunately there's no easy way to do this so I will have to make a list as well. My responses are in italics.
::::*"Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." ''Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.''
::::*"You claim "being focused on international law" is not poltical." ''I do not. I said being focused on international law as opposed to political '''power''' (meaning generally coercive force).''
::::*"You claim only "realists" are focued on political power." ''Correct.''
::::*"You claim trade issues, which affect domestic living standards among all actors, "makes no sense."" ''No, I never mentioned trade issues. I said '''most''' of the qualities on the list make no sense (and I listed several), not '''all''' of the issues. You are putting words in my mouth.''
::::*"You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political power."'" ''Correct.''
::::*"You assign a motive to others when they question you to clarify any of this convoluted talk and reasoning." ''I "assign a motive" when you go on a two-paragraph rant on the evils of liberalism and communism (which isn't liberalism on an international level -- it's radicalism). You are assigning value to a definition. And if the reasoning is convoluted, it's certainly not my fault; I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature and my class notes.''

::::As far as I can tell, we disagree about "liberal" and "political power". We also disagree about "idealist", and "realist", unless I misunderstood what you were calling a "dreamer" and a "pragmatist". So that's 4 terms. As I've said, I'm not trying to redefine a term, I'm trying to define a different, but similar, term that happens to use the exact same word. It's like the word "constitution". Ohio has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. The United States also has a constitution which is defined by the words in it. Both are similar, they use the same word, but they are not the same thing and one can not be directly applied to the other. Can you tell me, how many Democrats use the UN to negotiate domestic policy? And how many Republicans (realist is the analogy to conservative) use the military to enforce domestic policy?

::::I'm not sure what you mean by the good guy - bad guy thing. Last time you mentioned it you were talking about the bias of my classes, and now... you're the good guy and I'm calling you a bad guy? Or some political leader's a good guy being called a bad guy? I'm not sure.

::::I notice you keep ignoring my qualifications and you still haven't told me yours. You called ''basic'' IP concepts "disinformation". If this is a meritocracy why am I answering to someone who admits to not knowing the subject matter? I'm spending a lot of time here debating when I could be filling out [[User:Jazzman831/redlinks|other fundamental IP and national security concepts]]. It really would be faster if you'd flat out say that one sysop's opinion trumps two people's advanced study, and I'll move on to something else. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

#So, when you quoted your teachers saying "political", you really meant "military." Ahh, now we see point.
#"I never mentioned trade issues. I said most of the qualities on the list make no sense;" when you started this discussion, you expressly stated international issues, and articulated that very well. I never diverted into taxpayer funded abortion or eco-racism or any domestic issues. Nonetheless, international relations still is a sphere of human activities which for the most revolves around one group of persons selling the produce of thier labor to another group of persons, kinda like what happens everyday in grocery stores or an individuals place of employment. Here, the "actors" usually involve governments either facilitiating trade or impeding it (and nowadays, various NGOs also are involved).
#"I'm doing nothing more than parroting the literature;" does your literature instruct you to assign a motive of hate to someone who questions its authors reasoning?

What we see here is, "liberals" now are just benign pacificist bureaucrats who stand in contrast to power mad militant killers. And the fact that they are focused on thier institutional jobs which require a political appointment does not make them political, or power hungry in any sense. The are just moreless social workers, focused on international law. Ahh yes, the good guys win out in the end.

As for me, I am a qualified historian. But the nature of my work and career remains classified. I was for many years a partisan political operative, but don't have the stomach much for it anymore, so now I just focus on my true love, historical research and writing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:43, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

== Another definition of liberal -2 ==

:Please read my original definition again. Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats or about realists being warmongers or killers. (In fact, realists and liberals were both a response to the same act; liberals did not come to being because of the actions of realists). Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever. Nowhere in the definition is their factually incorrect material. Most importantly, nowhere (within the original definition or elsewhere since then) have I personally endorsed liberalism. (For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist).
:Please let me know when you have actually read anything at all about modern internation political theory, and we can continue this discussion (not that we will need to once you actually read the definition for yourself). You have officially succeeded in bullying me away from a subject you know very little about. Score one for the meritocracy. Good night. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 01:04, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

::Simply put, why the need to redefine the term? Its meaning is very well understood by both liberal activists and critics of liberalism. Redefining it to some nebulous concecpt above that raises more questions than it answers just adds confusion. It's not that different than the Cheka, OGPU, GPU, MVD, NKVD, NKGB, MGB, and finally KGB just finding a new name everytime the old one falls into disrepute. But the basic idea remains intact. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:13, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Smith: "why the need to define the term?"'''
:::*"Most of this page's definition of "liberal" doesn't apply to international politics"
:::*""Liberal" and "liberal" are homophones I guess"
:::*"Either way, they are still two different meanings"
:::*"there are two types of "liberal" (the IP liberal and the, shall we say, "standard" liberal)"
:::*"right now the [[realist]] article states that "The opposite of a realist is a [[liberal]]" -- but the page it points to does not describe the opposite of a realist"
:::*"I've answered this many times. (a) we need a new definition because the vast majority of [[liberal]] ''does not apply to the world level of politics''"
:::*"I'm not trying to redefine a term"
:::Maybe from now on I'll just continue my part of the discussion/bullying by copy/pasting my own words. (See other responses below) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, Jazzman is being taught with today's revisionist thinking. One cannot undo in some posts the years of brainwashing, which is what it realistically is. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 02:21, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I resent the implication that I'm not smart enough to know I'm being hoodwinked. I don't know what kind of crap you learned in school, but since I didn't attend the same school you did I don't insult your intelligence by presuming I know more about it than you do. I'd expect the same respect of my eduction. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:*Of course. If college students got the idea "liberal" meant somewhere between useless and dangerous, we'd be in big trouble. So we have to promote nonsense like the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political. Then throw in the mix things like denying what we just said, or redefine terms in the midst of debate. This moreless puts the liberal stamp on the argument just in case someone gets confused.

::One of the more pecular things about this redefinition is obscuring the line between "politcal" and "coerecive use of force." While liberals evidently are benign pacifists only pursuing careerism in international institutions which govern our lives, we need these politcally appointed caretakers to keep in check the power mad realists who wish to take our rights away, make war, rape the planet, and all sorts of other anti-liberal schemes.

::It's been very "enlightening." And Jazman, here's a realists point of view. [http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/Itemid,49/type,1/] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:25, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::'''Rob Smith: "we have to promote... the idea that being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not political"'''
:::*"I said being focused on international law as opposed to political '''power'''"
:::*""You claim "Being focused on institutions and international laws ''is not'' "political '''power'''."'" ''Correct.''" (emphasis added).

:::'''Rob Smith: "redefine terms in the midst of debate"'''
:::*"I never once changed the definition, and it's unfair of you to accuse me of such."
:::*"nothing is different than it was when I started"
:::*"Let's summarize; you claim you have not changed the meaning." ''Correct. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time.''"

:::'''Rob Smith: "liberals evidently are benign pacifists... [more ranty stuff about how I think liberals are better than realists]"'''
:::*"there were no value judgments made"
:::*"There simply was ''no'' sense of "here come the saviors" -- at all."
:::*"Nowhere does it say anything about liberals being benign, pacifists or bureaucrats"
:::*"Nowhere in the definition will you find any value judgements whatsoever."
:::*"nowhere... have I personally endorsed liberalism."

:::'''Rob Smith: "power mad realists... [more ranty stuff you think I said about realists]"'''
:::*"Realists are the ones who "go after political power" (which at any rate '''doesn't mean the same [thing] as what you seem to think it does''')." (emphasis added)
:::*"Nowhere does it say anything about... realists being warmongers or killers."
:::*"For most IP matters I'm really more of a realist"

:::Rob, it is very obvious that you don't know what you are talking about, and you aren't actually reading what I'm writing. At first I wanted to help you understand, but now I see that it's an entirely futile effort. The definition of a liberal is World Politics 101 day 1. ''I literally learned this stuff on the first day of teaching in Intro to World Politics.'' Please let me know when you have taken 1 day of a class, and then your critique might actually have some merit. (Get it? It's that damn meritocracy biting me in the butt again! Talk about revisionism! The one with the most merit is the one with the stronger, more ''admittedly'' ignorant opinion). Your qualms with my definition come not from a problem of the definition, but of your ignorance of the subject matter. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:19, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
::::It's so simple. I asked how being "focused on institutions and international laws" is not poltical. You can't explain it. Then, when you (or your teachers whom you claim to parrot) use "political power," somewhere you translate the term "power" into "coersion", Then you turn the phrase around to "power politics", which gives a whole new and entirely different meaning from "political power." I dwell on. I ask you again. You retort: ""Power" in this case would...can be simplified to "the use or display of force". It obviously breaks down further than simply "military might", but as far as our discussion goes it's close enough. So an extreme liberal/idealist would have no military (except perhaps do defend from -- but not deter -- an invasion) and would work entirely through international organizations such as the EU, UN, and the like, as well as international treaties (i.e. Kyoto). An extreme realist would completely eschew any diplomatic contact with anybody, would ensure their safety through military buildup, and would protect their interests through attack or threats of attack."

::::Now its hard to see if your parroting your teachers or not. Obviously, "focused on political power", and "focused on power politics" have two entirely different meaning. I pressed you on it several times. When you finally ''did'' give a defintion of "power", it was in reference to something other than what your cited text books said. You referred to "power politics" and military force. Being "focused on political power" does not carry this connotation. And you as yet have not explained how being focused upon institutions and international law is not be being focued on political power. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 24 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Rob, read a book, please. Why can't I explain how it's not political? Ready for this? '''It is political'''! It has been the whole time! I said it's not '''POLITICAL POWER'''. Here it comes again:
::::::'''Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power. Institutions and international law are not political power!'''
:::::Got it? They ARE '''political'''. They are NOT '''political power'''. Understand yet?
::::::No. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way; I'm sorry I wasn't careful enough with my phraseology. I'm not a professional teacher. However, if I clarify something, is it really that hard to use the clarification? When I say "political power is not mindless power politics" stick with that; it's what I really mean, even if you misunderstood what I meant otherwise earlier on. It's kinda hard to change the past.

:::::You seriously need to educate yourself in this area before you critique others. You are a historian, so let me use an analogy from within your field of study. What you are asking me is akin to me asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? You would tell me to read chapter one of "World War II for Dummies" and everything would be clear.

:::::Has Conservapedia changed somehow without me knowing? Have Ed Poor and Andy Shlafly turned away from their undying oath to "Conservapedia is a meritocracy"? I also hear people complain a lot about how Wikipedia is scaring away their professionals, leaving them with only novices. Was it possibly because of "discussions" like this one? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 22:05, 24 August 2007 (EDT)
<--
*''You seem to be confused about when I'm talking about "political power" and "power politics". I'm using both the same way''
::Typical marxist doublespeak.
*''asking you what the motivation was for Stalin's invasion of Poland. Get it? '''You would tell me''' to '''read''' chapter one of '''"World War II for Dummies"'''
::Me recommending commie propaganda? Not likely.

Summary: Ok, so you come here as a student of 101 IP class (whatever IP is, I'm assuming it stands for something like "International Politics" or something; I don't work hard to keep up on academic fads). You give a fairly liberal-to-marxist alleged "definition" of "liberal." The defintion raises more questions than it answers, as marxist gobbledygook usually does. When quearied on it, you (a) claim your just parroting class notes and matierials, (b) begin using words and phrases that evidentally don't appear in the class notes. Then you proceed to give your own interepretation as to what the teachers said while at the same time maintaining its all course material.

Somewhere, beginning with the questions I asked to clarify the definition, everything got lost. This only supports my suspicion the definition you cited is in fact liberal-marxist gobbledygook, and your answers only support that. You started reading things into the text that were not there, for example, the inability to see the difference between "focused on political power" and "focused on power politics" (I pray you are not contemplating pursuing and career in diplomacy).

In spite of all this, and reflecting on it all, I actually have come to see the point you & your teachers are trying to make. Put briefly, the UN & liberals are the good guys, focused on law & every sweet smelling thing, whereas the handful of "realists" in the world, Kim Il-Sung, Castro, and Iranian theocratic actors ignore all this stuff and do what they deem is in thier own best interests. So while Kim Il-Sung spends much of his time watching pornographic videos, the people of Cuba eat rats because the cats & dogs were all eaten decades ago, and the Iranian actor(s) dream of Islamic Middle Eastern hegemony, we all take comfort in the fact they are not lead by dreamers, but by realists.

So you made you point, I understand it. And actually it is not a simple as I've characterized, but I'm not certain you understand what your teachers are saying. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:29, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

:Is that seriously your response, Rob? That I'm a Marxist? And that my professors are Marxists? And that the "for Dummies" series are commie propaganda? Very professional mode of discourse. I thought sysops were supposed to be of superior quality to other editors, but that reply just makes you sound idiotic. You don't have to do a lot of work to find out that those claims are just plain wrong. For instance I have said several places on this site that I am quite the opposite of a Marxist, and I have said several times within this conversation that I am not a liberal. No offense meant, but do you read my replies, or just skim them for quotes to take out of context?

:Rob, how in the hell do you know what I'm adding to the text? Have you read the text? You don't even know that IP stands for international politics, how are you supposed to somehow magically know what's in an entire IP (that's international politics) text book? I can see the difference between YOUR definition of political power and YOUR definition of power politics. I said before, I'm sorry if I wasn't careful enough, but I MEANT the same thing by the two phrases. I never said the two were the same thing. This whole conversation is about the different use of the same words within two different fields of study -- is it really that hard to grasp that you can't just substitute whatever definition you want?

:For some reason your eyes keep missing this next part, so I'm going to make it easier for you to read: '''''I never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My teacher never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. My book never said that liberals were good guys and realists were bad guys. I have called myself a realist several times -- why would I call myself a bad guy?''''' This next part is going to blow your mind, ready? If you read my definition and think that liberals are the good guys and realists are the bad guys, it's because YOU think liberalism is somehow inherently good and realism is somehow inherently bad. It's especially baffling to me that you take issue with the fact that Sung, Castro, and various Iranian leaders are bad guys -- and ignore that the US is a good guy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem like a very conservative viewpoint here.

:The important point to remember here is that you are pushing away an editor who has made many good faith and useful edits. You obviously don't have many editors with experience in international politics or national security theory, so I found a niche in which I could help out. I have a long list of red links within both of those areas but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily decide you don't like my work. I don't think it's very good for the project as a whole to be in the practice of pushing away editors based on edits in areas in which you have no expertise. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:30, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

::To quote [[Ronaldus Magnus]], "Well, ...well,... and ...well...."
::*Ok, so in IP 101 they teach "power politics" and "political power" are the samething; it must be in IP 102 they draw a distinction.
::*You've gone onto a discussion of "realism" without satisfactorily defining "liberalism", so I'm not going to ask for a definition of "realism." Let's just not go there.
::*You've repeatedly made personal comments, some even of disparaging character, which makes me think (a) you are not suited for the field of foreigns affairs, and (b) you are using liberal & commie methods.
::*''"I have a long list of red links ...but I am wary of editing them lest you arbitrarily (sic) decide you don't like my work."''
:::Response: Nothing arbitrary about it. See my recent comment here [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&diff=prev&oldid=277033] The source I am referring to calls every US President who opposed Communism a "killer", and FDR, who faciliated Communist enslavement of 100,000,000 people, and handed over 2,000,000 people to the Communists for extermination, a "hero."
:::So let me conclude, you better have your sources particularly well qualified -- '''that is your responsibiltiy.''' If it is commie prop, with commie intent, my job is to keep it and the offending editor out. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:04, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

::::*No, they don't teach that they are the same thing. Please read what I wrote and try again. I really am not going to explain this point any more because I can only say the exact same thing so many ways.
::::*Realism is the opposite of liberalism. What realism is, liberalism is not. The two help define each other, and neither makes sense without the other.
::::*You have repeatedly accused me of being a liberal, Marxist and commie, are these not personal remarks? I have observed your behavior; that these traits of yours are disparaging is not my fault.
::::*Wait, so you are basing your Marxist claims on a reference I've never seen? That's a bit of a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALiberal&diff=275823&oldid=275814 non-sequiter], don't you think? I never used that source for class, or for this discussion, and until you linked to it I have never read it. It is an anonymous blog, not an international politics authority, and has no bearing in this discussion whatsoever.
::::In conclusion: it's my responsibility to prove that I am qualified (which you define as "gives the answer I want to hear"), even though there's really no way for you to know if I'm qualified, since you aren't familiar with the subject matter. Against my repeated denials, and my declaration on my user page and elsewhere (and my 1000+ uncontested edits to Conservapedia), you continue to call me a "commie" (which is, by the way, a dasparaging remark). You claim my book (which you have not read) is propaganda, my teacher (whom you have not met) is a Marxist, and the entire field of international politics (in which you have had zero hours of training) is secretly a liberal plot to promote socialism, and I'm just not smart enough to notice. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:43, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
<--

Ok let's beat a dead horse a little more. I never said anything about you. I refered to some of the arguments and claims you made as being marxist, and you specifically declaimed them all and blamed your teachers. I asked you to clarify a few times who was speaking, but never got a straight answer.

Here's what I think you and/or your teachers are trying to say:
:*Liberalism is defined by "liberal institutions" such as the [[United Nations]], and the rule of law.
:*[[Realpolitik]] characterized a succession of events and crises that finally precipitated the formulation of the United Nations.

So while you and/or your teachers are presenting this basic concept as a study in contrasts, it's really more of an historical progression or development. And using the term "realist" or "realism" creates added confusion; there is nothing wrong with the term ''Realpolitik'' and that is the term IP 101 should be studying. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:19, 25 August 2007 (EDT)

:As far as Marxism goes, I really think you are reading your own views into the definition. How can the definitions of liberalism and realism promote Marxism, when Marxism, communisim and socialism are covered under an entirely different label altogether (radicalism)?
:*Kind of, only your version of the definition is circular. Liberalism isn't ''defined'' by institutions, it is ''characterized'' by the ''utilization'' of institutions.
:*We didn't use the term ''realpolitik'', because realist is a better term for modern political science. As I've said before, this wasn't a history class. Certainly you wouldn't want me to start using the modern defintion of liberal (big government, public welfare, income equality, gun control) to describe [[Thomas Jefferson]], would you? ''Realpolitik'' does not describe realism, though it is certainly a subset of realism. Where ''realpolitik'' takes a pragmatic and prescriptive, realism is more reactive and descriptive.

:I was reading through the chapter of RSK and I found this passage interesting and enlightening: "Thus, in a very basic way, the social scientific approach to the study of international relations can be distinguished from the study of international history and international law. Some critics, including some historians, believe that humanity is the least promising area for scientific study because social behavior events -- especially international events -- are too complex and singular. Denying the existence of regularities would leave us to study only specific cases or to produce detailed descruptions, with no cumulation of knowledge for the scholar or policy maker. If every historical event is truly unique, and thus incomparable, the gulf between the social scientist and [historian] is indeed unbridgeable."

:That quotation again brings to mind the usefulness of giving veto power to someone from another discipline, but I'm sure I'll get nowhere raising that question again. I will ask this though: without changing my definition (which is correct) is there anyway you would agree to add it to the article? In other words, is trying to explain it anymore an excercise in futility? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yah but virtually all these alleged "realist" actors are members of the liberal insitution, the UN. And this definition of "realism" is misleading, because in truth they are virtually non-existent (Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1991 is the only case in recent memory).

::That is a very interesting quote; I'd gather from it (and other evidence) RKS are trying to "systematize" the study of international relations. There is nothing wrong with this approach, but I believe some of the cracks in the foundation have been identified. Namely, attempting to draw a straight line from early twentieth century liberalism til now.

::Here's my criticism of RSK based upon what you've quoted: they are refereing to [[classical liberalism]], and the idea's of "liberal democracy" and "liberal institutions" expounded by [[Woodrow Wilson]], not [[Franklin Roosevelt]], [[Alger Hiss]], and [[Josef Stalin]], the architects of the [[United Nations]]. So before we travel down this path too far, we must reexamine what the architects of this system of liberal governance and international law had in mind, what the historical record produced. Then we must separate that from Wilsonian ideology. And somewhere in the mix, we would also have to hammer the square peg of "realism" into the round hole of "liberalism," which our United Nations forefathers left for us. Do you see the problem? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:58, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I do see the problem, and it's the same problem we've had the entire time: you are confused about my definition.

:::First of all, being a member of the UN does not automatically disqualify you from realism. For example, the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic). Just as liberal/conservative is not a solid black and white, liberal/realist also contains shades of gray.

:::Secondly, you keep complaining about drawing a line through history, even though I keep telling you that international politics is not a study of history; we briefly discussed history to understand the context of the current meaning. If you want to discuss the intimate details of the history of the word liberalism be my guest, but I can't contrubute.

:::Lastly, by "liberalism" RSK do not mean classical liberalism. You keep trying to pigeonhole a new definition into something you understand. If this definition of liberalism could simply fit into some other definition, I certainly wouldn't have spent 5 days trying to convince you otherwise. It really would be a lot more efficient if you were to read some IP texts, as I have suggested many times; at least then I know we are speaking from the same perspective. (Though I highly doubt this definition would be in contention at all once you did some reading; maybe you won't like the idea of liberalism but at least you would agree that the definition is correct).

:::I ask again, is there a possible answer that could satisfy you anyway? Am I simply wasting my time? If you will only be satisfied when I break down and say "Rob you are right; the entire field of international politics doesn't know the definition of liberal" then we need to stop right here; that's simply not going to happen. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:45, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Ahh haa....''the United States is a member of the UN, but we go around it when it's in our interest to do so (a realist tactic).'' Right right. So by this definition, we can put GW Bush in the same camp with the Bismark, the Kaiser, and Hitler. And this isn't Marxist goobledygook? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:30, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Here's the problem: divorce this idea of "liberal" from the United Nations (unless you wish to argue [[United_Nations#UN_Sexual_Abuse_Scandals|pedophile Peacekeepers]] and the greedy [[Iraq#Oil_for_food_scandal|Oil for Food scam]] represents modern "liberalism"). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::Are you really that thick Rob? [[User:NadhoB|NadhoB]] 20:48, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::''My little finger is thicker than my father's loins.'' (1 Kings 12:10). [http://bible.cc/1_kings/12-10.htm] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:06, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::(I'm going to ignore the "loin" comment, because frankly it brings to mind disturbing images.)

:::::I'm assume, since you are a historian (which I believe without having you prove it, by the way), that you know that those three Germans you mentioned didn't skirt the UN, since they all died before the UN's formation. I'm guessing what you meant by the "goobledygook (sic)" comment is that those four were all realists? If so, you are making the false assumption that if one or many members of a group are bad then all must be bad. The United States is a realist power, and like it or not, some dictatorships are also realist powers. This isn't Marxist opinion, it's a fact (and anyway you haven't shown any glorification of Marxist ideas, only the association of "good" ideas with "bad" ones). So, if I use your logic, the United States can't be realist, because only bad guys are realist. This, by process of elimination, makes us liberal instead, which by your definition (the definition on the main article) means that as leader of our country, President Bush supports abortion, high taxes, same-sex marriage, fair trade, labor unions and globalism? That doesn't seem right to me, but then again, I only have a background in international politics, not world history.

:::::I ask again (third time's the charm, I hope): what are you looking for? I will not change my answer, because I do not profess to know more than an entire field of political scientists. Can I ever convince you that I am actually right, or will you only stop when I stand down and say that you (someone who has no experience in the field) know better than I? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 16:05, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

Go back and see what I posted before: you somehow got "liberalism" all confused and bound up with the United Nations. The United Nations is not democratic, never was, and may perhaps never will be. The United Nations is not even a parliament or law making body.

So if you wish to discuss the concept of liberalism in the field of international relations, foreign policy, "globalism", or whatever, forget using the UN as part of that definition. We may discuss it as part of an example, or in its historical context & development, its role in international relations, foreign policy and globalization, but let's not use it as part of a defintion. To quote yourself, "That makes no sense." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:Please look at my definition. It really clears a lot of things up when you know what you are talking about.

:Liberalism is not defined by the UN, the UN is an example of liberalism, as it clearly says in the definition. I added it as a clarification to the reader; to give the reader something with which they are familiar in order to solidify the concept. Liberalism does not hinge on democracy, as it says clearly in the definition (you were the first an only person to mention democracy, so how it got mixed up with what I said is beyond me). Remember those "international institutions", "international law", and "avoidance of political power" things you got hung up on before (they were all in my definition)? Those are what liberalism hinges on, not democracy. Liberals generally support [[democratic peace theory]] (great another red link; guess the IP nerds all got scared off), but that's not because liberals promote and requires democracy, it's because they recognize that democracies lower the barrier towards creating a "complex interdependance" between states (another term directly from my original definition).

:Why does the UN have to be a law making body? Didn't we have the conversation about "actors" verses "states" already? Any state, NGO, or IGO (such as the UN) is an actor. Any actor can be classified as liberal, realist, radical, or somewhere along the scale between them (though since most can not use force, there is a high proportion of liberal IGOs and NGOs).

:So since you tell me to use the UN as an example, and I do use it as an example, I guess you finally think something I say is right? (Have you actually been reading up on international politics? Or am I actually changing your mind?) I'm going to ask you a fourth time, because I'm really curious how long you will go before you read all the way down to the bottom of one of my responses: will you ever budge? Will you keep debating me until I give in and use your definition of a term from a subject in which you have no background? I'm not ever going to admit that you know more about a subject I have studied and you have not, so is there even a point to this conversation? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:02, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:*''the UN is an example of liberalism''
::This is where we have a problem.
:*''Liberalism does not hinge on democracy''
::This is where we have another problem. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:19, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::I'm just butting in here, but I think the country would be much better off without the UN. They are way too libral and only seek to stop the United States from taking actions, like in Iraq. As for the second point, Liberalism does not need democracy to florish--look at Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. --[[User:Todd16|Todd]] 20:27, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::*''Rob does not have a background in international politics'''
:::Problem three. Minor problem, as long as you are willing to learn new ideas.
::*''Rob clearly doesn't read my entire post, but still expects to understand my entire argument''
:::Problem four. A larger problem, because I'm starting to get tired of repeating myself.
::*''Rob wants to apply '''his''' definition to liberalism (as well as realism, actor, and political power) then claim my examples don't fit '''my''' definition.
:::Problem five. Pretty major hurtle to overcome, which really stems from a combination of problems three and four. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:40, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Let's take the example of Saddam Hussein, of recent memory. Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, recieved equal status and representation in this alleged "liberal" organization, the United Nations, by murdering anyone who opposed him. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:54, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::And? That does no damage to my definition of liberal (you know, the thing way up there that I keep referring to).

:::::If I remember correctly, the UN allows practically all states as members. It seems to me that allowing all states to join, even those who do "bad things", should, at least theoretically, encourage diplomatic cooperation between states, shouldn't it? Kicking out Saddam or refusing his entry would only encourage him to keep on with his evil ways, and it would especially discourage any diplomatic action. What part of this is not liberal? This is just to see if you read or skim. I'm guessing skim. Besides, if they had to reassess each country's policies every time they got a new leader the system would become so bogged down with wrangling membership that they would never get anything done. (Well, not that they get much done now, but that's a seperate issue entirely!) You are just substituting your opinion of the UN for a valid argument. Definitions do not judge, they describe. If you don't like what the definition describes that is entirely different than thinking the definition is false.

:::::I'm going to go for five (!) now: what are you looking for? Do you want compliance with your worldview, despite the fact that you have admitted to having no knowlege of the subject matter at hand (international politics)? Is there, theoretically, something I can say which will actually make you agree, or is this just going to go on until I decide I don't want to edit the encyclopedia anymore? I surely hope it's not the latter, as forcing away good faith editors is a horrible long-term strategy for Conservapedia. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 23:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're really not getting anywhere. You're not even trying to answer my questions, and your personal demeaning responses directed at me only add weight to this being marxist trolling. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:13, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--- Rob, nowhere in my post did I attack you, but you imply, again, that I am a Marxist. Isn't this demeaning? This is an ad homenem argument that has no basis in this debate, and at any rate is easily refuted by my numerous edits on this site. You also complain that I'm not answering your questions. Your last post contained no questions, therefore there were none to answer. I did write a lengthy response to your statement, though; I don't really know what else I could have done to satisfy you.

''My'' post, however, had five questions, none of which you answered. One set of questions I have asked five times total, just within my last 6 posts, and you have either not been reading my posts all the way through, or you have decided to ignore my question entirely. In fact, since I left a message to you within my post to check your thoroughness and you didn't make any reference to it, I'd say it's a pretty good bet that you aren't reading carefully, which explains how we can be discussing a 66-word definition for over 6 days. I take it, by the fact that your posts get shorter and more vague each time, that you have run out of criticisms. Is this a fair assessment? (And, before you say it, that's not meant to be an attack; your posts ''have'' gotten shorter, and they get less and less specific as time goes on. Your last one didn't even reference the subject in question). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 00:46, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, here's a response: the 66 word definition is trash, unencyclopdic, marxist tripe, and the type of garbage used to corrupt young minds on college campuses. Fair enough? I answered your question. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:52, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==pedophile Peacekeepers and the UN as a "liberal orgainzation"==
BTW, using your definition, " The United Nations is an example of a liberal political organization," we're having a discussion of [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6909664.stm liberal pedophilia] at [[Talk:Main_Page#Amnesty_International "...abortion should be allowed for victims of rape and incest. Especially in the Darfur region..."]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:30, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:Are you sure you all aren't Liberals engaging in a massive parody of yourselves? Because thats the way it feels with some of the cringeworthy things you come out with [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 13:35, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::Well either the UN is "a liberal organization" or its not, and either a pedophile is a pedophile, or its not. Add to that, either pedophile Peacekeepers are the solution to all conflicts or they are not.

::Put another way, either liberal solutions are the answer to our problems or they are not. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:44, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::But the definition of '''liberal''' used in American politics and the definition of '''liberal''' used in international politics are not the same. They are different concepts. It is common for different disciplines to have separate meanings for the same word.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:15, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Does the UN just recruit pedophiles from other parts of the globe to replace these "Peackeepers"?
</blockquote>

Are you implying all UN Peacekeepers are paedophiles? [[User:Johnjoe|Johnjoe]] 13:47, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Romeo and Juliet

2007-08-27T18:33:27Z

Porthos: New page: Is it appropriate to discuss such a sexually charged play, especially since it deals with a 13 year old girl?--~~~~

Is it appropriate to discuss such a sexually charged play, especially since it deals with a 13 year old girl?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:33, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

United States National Academy of Sciences

2007-08-20T21:12:47Z

Porthos:

'''The National Academy of Sciences''' (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.

The NAS was signed into being by President [[Abraham Lincoln]] on March 3, 1863, at the height of the [[Civil War]]. As mandated in its Act of Incorporation, the NAS has, since 1863, served to "investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art" whenever called upon to do so by any department of the government. Scientific issues would become even more contentious and complex in the years following the war. To keep pace with the growing roles that science and technology would play in public life, the institution that was founded in 1863 eventually expanded to include the [[National Research Council]] in 1916, the [[National Academy of Engineering]] in 1964, and the [[Institute of Medicine]] in 1970. Collectively, the four organizations are known as the '''''[[The National Academies of the United States]]'''''.

The NAS has published pro-[[evolution]] statements.<ref>http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/ </ref> <ref>http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?JServSessionIdr005=70xhhanjf3.app7a&pagename=NEWS_letter_president_03042005_BA_evolution </ref>

== References ==
<references/>
== Links ==
[http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page Official site]
[[category:United States Government]]

Talk:United States National Academy of Sciences

2007-08-20T20:52:42Z

Porthos:

In regard to the category marker of "US Government": The National Academies are not a part of the US Government. In fact it is pretty central to their mission that they are an independent, non-governmental agency. I recommend that this label be removed.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:27, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not a "part of" but nonetheless incorporated by an Act of Congress, and funded by the American Taxpayers. See: [[The National Academies of the United States]] --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

::Not to quibble, but I actually work for the NAS. The Institute of Medicine, specifically. We operate in the same manner as a contractor; when a government agency (or even a private sector group) requests a study, a contract is drawn up and compensation is agreed to. We are funded in exactly the same manner as a Senate plumber, and I don't think you'd call him part of the government.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 09:53, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

*I don't take it as quibbling. The Bureau of the Census does the cost of living surveys for Treasury, but I still think they are the government! Its a symbiotic relationship, I guess, like the Postal Service. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:39, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

==Hijacking==
I'm interested to know from [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] how the "hijacking" he mentions in his recent edit took place? Members of the Academies are elected. There's no way for an outsider to "force" his or her way in.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 16:52, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:The National Academies of the United States

2007-08-20T18:57:56Z

Porthos:

I've mentioned this before but the National Academies are not a part of the U.S. Government. They are government contractors. The article(s) should be recategorized.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 12:48, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

*And I have also mentioned they are government chartered and funded. Like the Post Office. Should we also remove them from the same category? Now, the answer is no, but we do appreciate your POV. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
::We also receive funding from private sources. Whoever requests a study is the one who pays for it, be it a private firm or a government agency. I don't work for the government, I don't draw a salary from the government. The label is simply incorrect.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:57, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-08-20T18:03:18Z

Porthos:

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Chronology==
Is there a particular reason that it goes ancient, modern, biblical? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop being facetious. When using '''any''' source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Perceived excesses of Confederate American practice"-This implies that the excesses were only perceived not real. Is that what you mean?

:: My read is that the Bible provides support for slavery, either in ancient or "modern" contexts. Whether or not that's a good thing, is a separate matter. [[User:JohnJones|JohnJones]] 09:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] said "He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity." That would imply that it's possible to have ''good'' slave-owner activity, a point which I would dispute most strenuously. If there's something more immoral than owning a human being, I haven't heard of it (and before anyone jumps in with examples of other kinds of heinous behavior, I submit that there are any number of ''equally'' immoral activities).
:[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether or not slavery is inherently wrong, but I ''do'' know that there is no such thing as one sin being more wrong than another; it is either wrong or it isn't, wrong doesn't come in degrees. James 2: 10-11 says: ''"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill'. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Imagine it's the year 3000 B.C. .... now, to satisfy your morality, what would you propose in a social system to replace jails and prisons with, considering they didn't exist to handle common drunks and thieves in those days? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I don't feel too ashamed of not being able to whip up a solution off the top of my head. Besides, it's not like they didn't have other punishments available, from flogging to fines. The notion of one person owning another is inherently immoral, IMO.
:::Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible.
:::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::What I am saying is reference to your personal "morality" is a pretense, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Why the quote marks around "morality?" What moral code does not abhor slavery?
::::::Well duh, this article states, "''Slavery is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible"'' [[Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Bible]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That doesn't speak well of the Bible, does it?
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I wasn't referring to my "personal" morality, but to every moral code of which I'm aware. I know no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other believer (or atheist, for that matter) who considers slavery to be anything but immoral.
::::::Sure, since we all hold enlightened, rational views now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Whereas the Almighty doesn't? I'd think that the source of all morality would be expected to abhor slavery. If that's not so, then this raises several interesting ethical problems. Outside the scope of this article, of course, but serious problems nonetheless.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought this was ''Conserva''pedia: I didn't expect to find some kind of flexible ethics presented here. Perhaps I was wrong.
:::::I answered your question, incidentally: I notice you didn't answer mine.
:::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 08:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm assuming your question is, ''"Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible."'' Let me answer a question with a question: Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons that thievery, drunkenness, prostition, and all petty crimes becomes morally defensible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're still ducking my question. Thievery and other crimes (I see no objective reason for either drunkenness ''per se'' or prostitution to be illegal) do not become morally defensible in the absence of prisons or other means of correction. However, that does not address my point. If you don't have any means of retribution besides slavery, then the solution is obviously to find other means, not to endorse slavery as morally acceptable.
:::::::I can see that this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Anyone who endorses slavery for any reason is clearly beyond any kind of appeal to ethics. I believe I'm done with this organization, which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of promise here.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::The problem can be understood as a simple economic one; an individual, in the year 3000 B.C., who would qualify for what we call today "repeat offender" status, i.e. he/she has been caught countless times in dishonesty, that is to say, stealing, so that no one would trust the individual to hold a job. This "incorrigible" in question has an immediate problem, i.e. finding tonites dinner. Now, while petty thievery may not be a capital offense warranting death by stoning, nonetheless, watching the pitiful thief waste away and starve to death evoked certain innate feelings in onlookers. Thus slavery came about, in the absence of a taxpayer funded universal state Corrections System. To pretend this social system which evolved offends your sense of "morality" is ludicrous, unless you can present some alternative theory of a social system ancients should have pursued that would have provided tonites dinner to prodigals incapable of providing it for themselves.

::::::::As the first poster in this subhead pointed out, slavery did not come into existence as a system of racial oppression, although after being in existence for some time, and being common to all societies and cultures, it did evolve into such. Prisoners of War, for example, always ended up being slaves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::So economics trumps morality?
:::::::::This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm having to oppose slavery on "''Conserv''apedia." I'm cancelling my account, and you may sit and defend slavery to your heart's content without me.
:::::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 09:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::No one is "defending slavery"; we are seeking an accurate understanding of (a) what it is, and (b) how it came about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that giving criminals forced labor is necessarily a bad thing. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==West vs. Islam==

I daresay the Western world was more keen on abolishing slavery than the Arab or Islamic world. Nowhere in the Christian West is there any more slavery. The [[Sudan]] still has slavery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Slavery was not abolished in Saudia Arbaia until 1962; a slave market 40 miles outside of Mecca was finally shut down. Many "pilgrims" to the Holy places ended up their when they didn't have the money for a round trip ticket and got busted shoplifting or whatnot to get enough money to return home. This seems to be a tradition that goes ''way'' back in Islam, and one reason [[Osama bin Laden]] cites for Western influence on Islamic traditions. The slave market was shut down, coincidcentally enough, at the same time Saudia Arabia gained independent status in the IMF & WTO to conduct its own affairs, rather than be the stepchild of the Great Britain or the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution. ==

This should be removed because it is offensive to many true Christians, and it truly makes this site look like a complete joke.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was, the troll indefinitely blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
=="Slave owners in the Southern states"==
I think we need a citation for the general statement, "Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thank You, this article got me thinking==
This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:Let me present a theory: perhaps biblical references to slavery simply mirror the historical accuracy of the bible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yea, thats how I "reconciled" it with my liberal indoctrination too. The fact that I thought it had to be reconciled is a bit disturbing to me. I was obviosly led astray.
::Its clear from the passages that it explicitly lays out laws regarding slavery. If G-d wrote about it, it must be a pure and beneficient institution, and therefore should be reestablished. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 18:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::God wrote about incest and bestiality, too; does that mean incest and bestiality are pure and beneficient? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::You know what I meant. G-d laid out laws to INSTITUTIONALIZE slavery. So as an institution it must be pure and beneficient. G-d specifically forbade both bestiality and incest. Yea, obviously because the bible talks about, say, unbelief, doesn't mean unbelief is acceptable. You must have known what I meant? Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 21:05, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't know that God institutionalized slavery, in fact, it appears God was a lone voice for slave-rights at the time. Master's thought they owned the man body and soul, God appointed specific time served remedies, and protections against things like putting out a slaves eye. God never mandated slavery, it was a man made solution for dealing with sin; God just prevented human rights excesses by the slave owners.

:::::In point of fact, strictly speaking, the Bible actually teaches that we all are slaves, either slaves of Christ or slaves of sin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've just started to make a bit clearer in the article, biblical "slavery" and modern slavery are two quite different things. The Bible does "endorse" slavery at least to the extent of regulating it, but not in the sense of endorsing what is commonly understood as slavery now. And yet, it's a "liberal" (antibiblical) tactic to equate the two in order to discredit the Bible.

But more to the point, your view of God that he never has different requirements for different situations is unbiblical. God had Jonah go to Nineveh to tell them that they were doomed, but after they repented, He "changed his mind". That is, God's plan for the Ninevites was according to the particular circumstances, and when the circumstances changed, so did His plan.

Similarly, God required certain things of the Jews under the old covenant, and different things of Christians under the new covenant. We no longer offer sacrifices, for this reason, nor approach God via priests. Just because "slavery" was regulated and perhaps tacitly endorsed in Biblical times doesn't mean that we necessarily have to continue the practice today.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:Basically, slavery was a man-made invention to deal with debtors. A thief, when discovered, owed a debt to the victim. All sorts of other crimes likewise resulted in victims suffering losses to the perpetrators whom could be identified as debtors. There even arose a concept of the society as a whole being victimized by debtors (today, liberals debate so-called "victimless crimes", alleging for example marijuana use or prostitution harms no one, which is highly debatable). The debtors were in most instances incapable of repaying the debt, and barring a disincentive or deterant, were often repeat offenders. Thus the very basic notions of living in a civilized society came into play, i.e. (1) maintaining and protecting property rights, and (2) preventing criminals from gaining ascendency over persons who by habit were honest in dealing with their fellow human beings. If the debtor could not repay a debt, his person became the property of the creditor, who then was burdened with financing the slave-debtor's survival and maintainance until revenue produced by the debtor's labor could be sold to (a) repay the slaves maintaince, and (b) repay the old debt. This process could be short circuited by selling the slave himself to another financier (in much the same way bad debts are sold to collection agencies today at a discount), thus the slave trade came into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with both of you. The sarcasm of the first entry is thinly veiled. It pretends that slavery is a creation of God and that its "good points" outweigh its bad points enough that we out to revive it. Actually, no one today agrees with this idea outside of a few Islamic people in Africa (see [[Sudan]]).

::Rob's point is closer to the truth. Some people were indeed sold into slavery because of their own debts - or maybe those of their parents. Some of the [[human trafficking]] in modern East Asia stems from this: girls in Thailand or South Korea have been sold as [[sex slave]]s even as late as the 1980s. But most slaves are victims of kidnappers, marauders and war victors. They didn't become slaves due to any "debt" but were simply captured.

::The main motive for slavery is to not to fulfill God's will or to reclaim a debt. Rather it is to get something for nothing. It's plain selfish. And selfishness, i.e., taking advantage of another person for your own benefit, is the definition of [[evil]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Ed. What I was referring to was how slavery as an institution came into existence several milleniums ago, as we all know, written sources corroborating what I've said are problematic. And yes, slavery was complicated when a child was born of the parents of one or two slaves, who couldn't work off the debt in their lifetime. This ideas was carried over into [[feudalism]], were originally a feudal lord could grant a person relief from the elements, a job, and sustanance, and at the time was a solution to the problems of unemployment of homelessnes; but eventually children were born into the system, and didn't regard the "lord" of the estate in the same way the orginal serf did, that is, as the guy who offered safety, protection, a job, and dinner until the fruits of his labor could be sold at market to pay for his debts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:33, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::So G-d figured since Man was going to do it anyway, might as well set out rules for it, but not necessarily condone it? So G-d's approach to slavery is basically the same as the liberal approach to pre-marital sex?

::Wonderful people, I thought this was supposed to be a conservative christian encyclopedia, where G-d's word is heeded and given the utmost respect. Apparently I was wrong. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 17:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not unlike divorce; God hate's divorce presumably as much as slavery, yet allowed it because of man's sinfullness, stubborness, and hard heartedness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== "[[Old Testament Era]]" ==

This phrase stood out to me as I was reading. What, may I inquire, is the "Old Testament Era"? To my knowledge, the Old Testament spans quite a stretch of history, so perhaps the phrase should be more specific. Unfortunately, I was at a loss with what to replace it. --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 11:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:It's a peculiarly Christian concept of history. Everything after Jesus was born is the New Testament Era; history stretching back from then to around the time Moses received the Law (and/or the Ten Commandments) is the Old Testament Era. Some theologians or historians might extend that back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - but it gets 'murky' back their.

:Anyway, it's obviously not a secular concept. Try [http://www.the-highway.com/law1_Wenham.html this reference]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Christianity's dealing with the Old Testament uses (since we're not Jewish). My point was that "Old Testament Era" is unnecessarily broad and doesn't really define itself clearly; the provided link certainly did nothing to answer my question. There's also the issue that the time line between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New is not unbroken. Other historical events occur, thus making the term "Old Testament Era" vague and useless in this context. I think it should be more definite or perhaps more reliant on concrete dates, etc. Of course, there's also the issue that there is obviously slavery in both the "Old Testament Era", "The New Testament Era", and the "Post-Testaments Era". --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I've changed it to "Under the Mosaic Law...". Better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
== Islam ==
Islam is exactly a place name, i.e, it means "The Realm of Peace." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:Begging your pardon but Islam translates into English as "submission" (i.e. submission to God).--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 22:53, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::Islam is a contraction of "Dar al Salem" (Salem in Semitic languages means "peace") Dar al Salem is perpeturally at war with Dar al Harb, or the "Realm of Conflict,", i.e. those areas and persons who inhabit those areas outside Realm of Peace. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Begging your pardon again Rob, but you're incorrect. Please refer to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Islam for the origin of the word.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 23:01, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::::My humblest apologies for using Wikipedia as a source, and I pray you forgive me, and I issue all appropriate warnings about its veracity, etc., but its late at nite and I promise to do better next time. But let's look at WP's entry [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam#Dar_al-Islam here]:
:::::*Dar al-Islam (Arabic: دار الإسلام literally house of submission) is a term used to refer to those '''lands''' (emhasis mine) under Islamic rule. In the orthodox tradition of Islam, the world is divided into two components: dar al-Islam, the house of peace and dar al-Harb, the house of war.
::::Ed. note: Tentative conclusion based upon a suspect source, (a) "peace" and "submission" have basically the same connotation in Arabic, and (b) this does not refer to a verb, but rather a domain, or place name. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:17, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:That might be the origin of the word [written before edit conflicts with Porthos and RobS], but in normal everyday use, it is the name of a religion, not a physical Earthly location. I tried to make a similar change, but was beaten to it by Samwell. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::Modern [[nation state]]s, such as [[Saudi Arabia]], are entirely a Western Christian invention, probably dating from the time of Charlemagne's sons. Islam does not recognize Western Christian ascendency over Islam, and indeed views dividing Islam up into nation states by the British, French, and other European Imperial powers, as the root cause of their problems. Saudia Arabia is entirely a creation of Western Christendom; the Arabs refer to it as the Arabian Penninsula, really it proper name. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:03, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*Dar-el-Islam = the realm of Muslims --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:15, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

RobS, is this now an academic argument about the meaning of the word, or are you trying to make a case that the article should revert to using "Islam" as a place? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:59, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Disregarding the non sequitur about nation-states, I think we can agree that Islam is not a geographical location any more than "Christianity" or "Buddhism" is. Regarding the words, "Islam" comes from '''الإسلام''', which translates ''directly'' to "submission". Dar al-Islam ('''دار الإسلام''') translates to "house of submission", as the term ''Dar al-Islam'' was used primarily ''after'' the advent of Islam as a religion. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
::I think you have it exactly incorrect; it is ignoring these facts is precisely the grievance that motivated [[Osama bin Laden]]. Islam is indeed a place name, while "Western Civilization" is the modern secularized term applied to what earlier documents refer to as "Western Christendom." None of the so-called "Islamic states" are indigenous creations. They all were carved out of Western [[spheres of influence]] from so-called "Western [[Imperial]] Powers."
::The original (primary source) Koranic language refers to Dar al Sa-lĕm, or the Realm of Peace, Abode of Peace, House of Peace, or other translated versions. The people of the House of Peace are called the "ummah", from which get we the "ummah of Sa-lĕm", or mu-sa-lĕm. Ĭ-sa-lĕm is itself a [[contraction]] (a contraction is like the word "can't"), Ĭ-sa-lĕm is a contraction of Dar-al-Sa-lĕm.
::However, now we have gone past the original primary source into a body of literature spawned by Koranic writing in a multitude of languages, this may be referred to as its "civilizational aspects," to use the term of recent origin my [[Samuel Huntington]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/The_Clash_of_Civilizations]. What we are discussing here is contrasting civilizational idioms. But in short, ask any Muslim and they will tell you, Islam is primarily a place name, from which a civilization and religious faith also have grown out of. And the Realm of Peace is perpetually at war with the enemies of God, or the "faithless", also called infidels ("kufr", sometimes "kufir").
::The concept of [[nation state]] arose in the division of the land of the Franks afrer Charles the Great (Charle-Magna) most historians would probably agree. It is entirely Western, and Christian in both concept and origin. Nation states were imposed upon Islam, and the Arab nation, pretty much universally after the [[Treaty of Versailles]] (less then 90 years ago). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:16, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:::I did just ask a Muslim coworker of mine and she seemed pretty certain that Islam is not, nor ever has been, a place name.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:50, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
::::A disciple of [[Elijah Muhammad]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:56, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::No, her parents immigrated here from Pakistan apparently. She tells me she's Sunni by tradition.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 14:03, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-08-20T17:50:45Z

Porthos:

Talk:The National Academies of the United States

2007-08-20T16:48:07Z

Porthos: New page: I've mentioned this before but the National Academies are not a part of the U.S. Government. They are government contractors. The article(s) should be recategorized.--~~~~

Talk:Abortion

2007-08-20T15:33:12Z

Porthos:

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

==Maintain the neutrality of the article==
Reading through this article, nearly 1/3 of all the sentences cite a 'fact' yet have no reference. And because it is edit-locked, a mod with a true notion of what it is to create informative articles needs to go over this with a fine tooth comb.--[[User:Nosferatu.feuertote|Nosferatu.feuertote]] 21:18, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I cannot help but notice that of the TWO citations noted after the claim that abortion is a "billion dollar industry", neither of the linked "references" make any claims about the value of the "abortion industry". I am NOT pro-abortion, however I am PRO-FACT. If you make a claim and list citations directly afterwards, THOSE CITATIONS SHOULD DIRECTLY VERIFY THE CLAIM YOU HAVE JUST MADE! A quote from the first "source":

Republicans say this law is being violated in the interest of making money, although they did not provide specific numbers or incidents.

The second "source makes absolutely no mention of any revenues, potential or actual.

Brian

"The father of medicine, Hippocrates, expressly prohibited abortion in his ethical Oath long before Christianity." Is a bit weasly. Hippocrates also would not perform surgery, and definitely interfering with the heart was out of the question. But we know how many people are prevented from dying through heart-surgery. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning the oath in the first paragraph. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 15:32, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

=="This is Conservapedia"==
Although I would expect that most people who self-identify as "conservatives" ''are'' opposed to abortion, I doubt that all of them are. I don't think opposition to abortion is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for conservatism. Nor do I think it is part of the definition of, or a litmus test for Christianity. Of course one could say that anyone who claims to be a "pro-choice conservative" is not ''really'' a conservative, but that's begging the question.

See, for example, the Seventh-Day Adventists' [http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/guidelines/main_guide1.html nuanced statement] on abortion. Most would regard them as a conservative Christian group. They say:

:prenatal life must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Abortion should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

:Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel.

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:29, 18 February 2007 (EST)

If this was just Conservative you might have a point, but it is Conservative and Christian. There is no way a Conservative Christian could support abortion in any way. It is contrary to everything in the Bible, so you must be willing to either 1.) Ignore parts of the Bible like some liberal Christians. or ignore all of the Bible like non Christians. Otherwise you can't support abortion. Adventists are as much Conservative as they are Christian--which is to say NOT AT ALL. They are a cult, and ignore the Bible in many significant ways. Come up with better evidence then tehm if you think your point is valid.
--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 03:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference

That's very interesting. The Seventh-Day Adventists run many hospitals, including one in New Jersey. I'm disappointed in its official stance, though I suspect that many adherents to the religion are more opposed to abortion that the statement implies. I doubt the Adventist hospital in NJ performs any elective abortions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:07, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: I ''assume'' that they're thinking about situations where the life of the mother is at stake.... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: I agree that there can be conservatives who support abortion. Personally however, as a Christian myself, I believe it is impossible to be a Christian and support abortion at the same time. This would be a major contradiction. Also, I highly doubt that "most" would regard the Seventh-Day-Adventist church as Christian as they add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus. Just my opinion on the matter. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:13, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:: Is there ''any'' denomination that doesn't "add their own ideas to the teachings of Jesus?"

:: Doesn't the Catholic Church add the opinions of the Pope when he speaks ''ex cathedra.'' Surely Catholics are Christians?

:: And if Protestant denominations don't "add anything to the teachings of Jesus" than why do Baptists say they have "no sacraments," Lutherans say they have two, and Episcopalians seven? Why do Methodists believe in the "Real Presence" of Christ in the Lord's Supper but Presbyterians believe he is only "spiritually" present? Why do some denominations baptize adults and others not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:33, 18 February 2007 (EST)

:::'''Reply:''' It is very true that churches have added onto the teachings of Jesus even though it clearly states in Revelation 22:18-19 that anyone who adds or takes away any words from the Bible will be harshly punished:

:::''"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19''

:::It is made very clear that God does not want to be edited. But Dpbsmith, I ''do'' believe that there are churches that hold very tightly to the teachings of Jesus and base their faith completely on His Word. So, yes, there are denominations that do not add their own ideas to the Bible.
::: And, though abortion is never ''directly'' called "abortion" in the Bible, Exodus 21: 22-25 refers to God giving his explanations to the Israelites about how to deal with matters of women with child:

:::"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21: 22-25

:::'''Reply:''' It is funny that you reference the old mosaic law when Jesus clearly gave a new law to take place of the eye for an eye law. Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek, not eye for an eye, tooth for tooth.

:::It is very obvious that the life of an unborn child is valued and considered a human life by God. There is another verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that also deals with the value of an unborn child's life, but I am sure that Conservapedia would rather have an article on the Bible than try to be it. :) --[[User:David R|David R]] 20:35, 18 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, a number of issues- first, that verse has classically has a very different translation, premature birth actually means miscarriage in most translations (and from my (admittedly minimal knowledge of Hebrew, is more plausibly correct). (Examples of ones which translate as such in English are the KJV ASV,)). The vulgatus in fact used the word "abortivum" to describe what happened. The Hebrew is actually interesting - the phrase is וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ which litterally means "and the child went out" which is interesting because there is a separate verb used generally to mean giving birth. Now the upshot of all of this is important, if this refers to a miscarriage then one must conclude that if anything the Bible does not see the unborn child at the same level as that of a human since the punishment for manslaughter of a normal human is much more severe than just a monetary fine. Thus, if anything, this verse shows that the Bible see a serious distinction between the unborn and the born. And even if you insist on translating this as premature birth then it simply becomes a tort of born individuals. Thus, if anything, this verse undermines pro-life arguments.

::: Jeremiah 1:5 has similar problems. The NAS translation is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Again, there are interesting translational issues but they aren't as directly germane. This one simply requires a bit of context. When it is quoted as attempting to support pro-life arguments the last part of the verse is generally not quoted. When you look at the entire verse and the verse right above one thing is very clear, this verse is talking about a single person - Jeremiah. Jeremiah was known to God in womb, Jeremiah was consecrated and appointed as a prophet. This isn't talking about generic babies. Furthermore, one could make the argument that if God consecrated every single unborn baby then there would be no point in telling Jeremiah that he had been consecrated as such and that you can therefore see this verse as possibly arguing against every baby being consecrated (I find this argument very weak, but that's a different matter). The bottom line however is that this verse doesn't support a pro-life stance and if it has anything to say on the matter says the opposite. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:09, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Joshua Z, you have twisted the translation badly. A premature birth does not equal a miscarraige. It didn't mean that in Biblical times and it doesn't mean that now. Please go [[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/does_exodus_21_sanction_abortion| here]] for an educated translation and discussion on that specific topic. --[[User:David R|David R]] 10:17, 19 February 2007 (EST)

: I find it interesting that you accuse me of twisitng the translation when the translation I have given you is that of the Vulgatus and the KJV. Also, this is how the verse was classicly intepreted in ancient Israelite law as seen in the talmud (certainly this is the majority view in the talmud, I don't even remember the possiblity of premature birth in this matter coming up- looking this up now) . As to the christian courier article, it is rife with problems. Among other problems, Job and Kings are written far after Exodus and there is a much larger vocabularly. The last verse quoted in the article about Menachem is in fact clearly in context referring to such ripping as a torture or punishment of the female in question. There are a variety of other issues with the article, but I'm not going to go into them in detail. The bottom line is that the KJV agrees with this translation, the Vulgatus agrees with this translation and the ancient Israelite law used this translation. It is at best inaccurate to call such a translation "twisted." (I incidentally presume from the lack of comment that you don't disagree with my analysis of Jeremiah)[[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I dont know how you translated "miscarraige" from the King James Version. It does not contain the word miscarriage. In fact, it says premature birth. The last time I check a premature birth was a premature birth, not a miscarriage. You could say that a miscarriage resulted from a premature birth(verse 23). Nevertheless, the translation provides no miscarriage. Going to the Hebrew translation, the fact that they did have a separate verb for "birth" and "and the child came out" goes to show that the second verb refered to a unorthodox birth. But it is pure speculation to call it a miscarriage. As for why I did not reply to your second paragraph containing your thoughts, it is only because I was focusing more on the first one and happened to forget about the second. Be patient. It is a mistake on your part to simply assume that I have no counter to your "analysis". The verses in Jeremiah imply that Jeremiah was set apart to become a great prophet, not to be the only baby to have life before birth. I admit, after looking over this verse a couple times, that it wasn't the strongest material to back my argument, but it surely does not oppose a "pro-life" stance as you script it to. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:19, 20 February 2007 (EST)

: It doesn't say miscarriage. It refers to the fruit departing which is a euphemism for miscarriage in other texts in the late 1500s. As to the Jeremiah point, as I said the argument for it being against a pro-life stance is weak and I find that unpersuasive. However, in context it is at best neutral on the matter. (In any event, the fact that the ancient Israelites interpreted it as miscarriage and the Vulgati translate it as abortivum is very hard to get around). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:42, 22 February 2007 (EST)

The Bible and Christianity are clearly incompatible with abortion. First off, abortion is an act of murder. The Bible never once refers to an unborn child as an "unborn fetus." The term "with child" is used, not "with fetus." In Luke 1:36 and 41 Elisabeth's "babe" leaps in her womb, not her "fetus." Job refers to unborn children as infants in Job 3:16.

<blockquote>At two weeks pregnancy, the "fetus" can move alone. By four weeks the child has limbs, muscle tissue, a heart and heartbeat. Ears, eyes, and small hands are visible by the fifth week. The child responds to touch sensations by the sixth or seventh week. At eight weeks, the baby sometimes tries to take a breath when removed from the mother. At twelve weeks, the child will often struggle for life two or three hours when removed from the mother.</blockquote>

:At two weeks from fertilisation, the embryo has not even [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/7.html implanted], indeed, many embryos don't even make it as far as implantation, which happens at about [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/8.html two and a half weeks]. At [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html four weeks] the fetus has no hands, hands don't fully appear until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/22.html week eight], and the arms are little more than buds[http://www.visembryo.com/baby/13.html buds]. The fetus doesn't practice breathing until [http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12_weeks.html 12] to [http://www.babydiscovery.co.uk/pregnancy-timeline.asp 14] weeks, so I'm not sure how it would try to take a breath at 8 weeks. At twelve weeks, abortions are surgical abortions that do not result in an entire fetus, so the fetus could hardly struggle for life after that. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:33, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Abortion encourages sin, just as the Texas HPV vaccine will. It does not "fix" any problems as some people would like to believe, it just makes the problem bigger. If God condoned abortion then he would be contradicting himself. Ecclesiastes 3:14 - "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Abortion is an''' attempt to bring an end to God's work... to make him a liar. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 09:46, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:: A charming response that doesn't deal with either the matter in Exodus or the matter in Jeremiah. The use of the same word in all those cases is explainable by the simple fact that most ancient cultures didn't have separate words for fetus, embryo and baby (ancient Hebrew and aramaic do not seem to have had separate words, if they did, they are no longer extant). Again, the above verse in Exodus if anything demonstrates that abortion is not murder since the punishment is less than that for murder. The quote you have about the features of a child at an early age has nothing to do with biblical exegesis. Finally, the last paragraph is also irrelevant- whether or not abortion encourages sin is a distinct question from whether abortion is Biblically forbidden or whether it is murder. Finally, you are applying that quote from Ecclesiastes in a highly selective fashion- under that logic since God makes diseases medicine shouldn't be allowed. In fact, that verse is making a very different statement- the end of the verse is not a commandment but a statement of futulity in fighting God's work- anything that God ordains to occur, will occur whether or not humans attempt to interfere. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 09:57, 19 February 2007 (EST)
::: '''Reply''' The fact that they did not have separate words proves that they were considered equal. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 10:51, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: '''REPLY''': Exactly right, Tim. Well done. On another topic, can you figure out how to link to my appearance on MSNBC this morning? I'd greatly appreciate that and some visitors to Conservapedia may be interested. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:55, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:::: No, no no. Not at all. The general hebrew vocab was small. See for example the word for holy- kadosh which has about a dozen different meanings and can in one form refer to a prostitute. The total vocab was small. One sees this in other semitic languages also, and without modern medicine and such no one has any need to distinguish that much between whether or not a baby was born. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:40, 19 February 2007 (EST)

Wikipedia would never have this talk you know. This is why we are '''Conserv'''apedia --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 18:20, 18 February 2007 (EST)

: Well, that might be related to the fact that Wikipedia doesn't care about anyone's personal religious viewpoints or reading of the bible per among other policies [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research|WP:NOR]]
'''

:The Wikipedia link is broken. I moved Neurocat's comments about abortion here:
Abortion

Repeatedly, you have removed my edits regarding the abortion topic. My edits were intended to balance the strong right-wing slant of the original entry. For example ...

*if abortions do cause health problems, there should be a fair and balanced discussion of what the benefits are of abortion

: '''REPLY:''' There are no benefits. The mother's health is harmed by abortion , as shown by cited studies, and what happens to the child is obvious. If you claim there are benefits, then you have prove your case.
::But an abortion procedure (a legal one at least) is statistically safer than childbirth. Also, if a women has no children, then she does not have the lower risk of breast cancer gained when having a child, but surely she has not increased her risk of cancer, rather she has not decreased it. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 17:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

*if the pro-choice movement funds the Democrat party, there should be an equal discussion about the funding activities of the pro-life party

: '''REPLY:''' There is nothing comparable in the Republican Party. There is no billion-dollar industry profiting from saving lives from abortion. Again, if you think there is something comparable, then you have to provide proof for your claim. You'll then see it doesn't exist.

*if the page is to say that the "pro-choice" group is not pro-choice about the funding for abortion, then there should also be statements about how the "pro-life" group is not truly pro-life when it comes to providing social support for unwanted children, fighting to outlaw the death penalty, or doing stem cell research to save adult lives.

:'''REPLY:''' Again, your claims are simply untrue. Many pro-lifers are actively engaged in pregnancy crisis centers and adoption. Many oppose the death penalty, but obviously that analogy fails because the death penalty is retribution for a heinous crime. Virtually all pro-lifers support various types of working stem cell therapies to save lives.

However, I see that these statements, while equally factual to the original entry, do not fit in with the personal bias of the administrators. Therefore, I deleted all biased statements from the entry that were not clearly supported with evidence.
-Neurocat

:'''REPLY:''' I'll look again at what you did. You're free to post your claims if you back them up. Most of your claims above, however, cannot be backed up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 21 February 2007 (EST)

It is interesting to note that several times it has been stated that NOTHING good has come of abortion. Freakonomics by Steven Levitt makes a very strong causal link between the introduction of abortion and fall of crime in the US. Perhaps it would be worth a read for some people.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

: Hello. I know I might be jumping in a bit late here, but I thought I'd explain what ex-cathedra meant, as someone seemed to be of the impression that the Pope can add things to the Bible, but this is what the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ex Cathedra] defines it as: "Literally 'from the chair', a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the '''definitions''' given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority..." (emphasis added) Anyway, what I think is relevant here is that when the Pope makes an ex-cathedra teaching, he is not just making something new up, he is '''defining''' the Church's stance on the matter. Take, for example, the topic we have here - abortion. On the subject of life beginning at conception John Paul II wrote in [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html Evangelium vitae]: "I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium." (I'm not actually sure if this is an ex-cathedra document, but you get the idea). What he is doing here is not adding something to the Bible but clarifying the Church's stance on this, '''in accordance with''' the Bible, for example Luke 1:39-41 "And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda; And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth. And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost" The Council of Ancyra also said "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]). The Early Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra proclaimed these things to be in concurrence with the Bible, and (as far as Catholics believe) that is just what the Pope (with the help of Cardinals, etc.) does nowadays. Anyway, I know that was a rather long explanation, but thank you if you read it all and I hope you now understand a bit better what we believe about ex-cathedra proclamations. Feel free to contact me if you'd like to know more about what the Church says about abortion (although I think most people already know lol) or anything else Catholicism-related. :D --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Additional Information==
I posted some additional information to round out the entry, along with references. This includes a link to a Pro-Life PAC that is against abortion in cases of rape, incest, and medical need, as well as a link to a website that offers information calling the abortion-breast cancer link into some question. Hopefully this provides a richer, more well rounded entry. --[[User:Neurocat|Neurocat]] 10:44, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Perhaps pointing out the fact that the link between abortion and breast cancer is not a causal one. The way in which the link is presented in the article is biased, it portrays abortion as being a cause of breast cancer. It is much better defined as an indicator, for abortion itself does not cause breast cancer.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

This article needs serious work. There's one sentence talking about what an abortion is, and BAM! Breast cancer. Why is breast cancer at the top? Is that the most important topic relevant to abortion?

== profitability of abortion ==

It's been reported before that fetuses are sold as a commodity, either for use in Chinese medicine:

http://www.abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortedBabiesSoldAsHealthFood.htm

or for ghoulish Western research practices:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/10/fetal.tissue/index.html
http://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8247

How is this not something that should be in Conservapedia? This is something that people should be talking about.

:While fetuses are very usful for research purposes, I find the idea of them as a food quite laughable - who would actually eat it? And the source is hardly credible. Abortiontv.com? Hmm.. really respectable and unbiased. And Phelps is a calm and polite debater. Also, before anyone brings it up, the stories about fetuses being used for embryonic stem cell based cosmetic therepy is also a load of nonsense: Such therepy wouldn't work any better than conventional treatments, and the most likely outcome is a rather nasty tumor. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

==Should the article introduce and define the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice?"==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&curid=3937&diff=17574&oldid=17566], whether or not the article uses the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" I think it makes sense to define both in the article. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)

One of our rules is conciseness. The above terms are self-evident and not even used much in the article. The sentence is unnecessary for 99.9999% of readers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure that's true. That would I presume depend on both what your intended readership is and other issues. (For example, would you be at all aiming for non-native English speakers who don't know much about the English terminology? I always taught to aim to explain to the least knowledgable reader) Furthermore, I think it's important to point out the terms in relation to what the different sides emphasize in regard to the debate. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:23, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: As a matter of conciseness, the current article isn't exactly concise (I would think for example that it would make sense to have one section on health risks, not 3. The level of detail there compared to other issues such discussions of the the basies for attitudes towards abortion as well as the political history seems a bit unbalanced. The article doesn't even mention Griswold for exampe.). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 02:26, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::It's my sentence so let me explain why I put it there. It was not to define the terms, but a) to justify the use of terms with "spin" and b) set ground rules. Both terms are so ''thoroughly'' dishonest that I really detest using either of them and think that a justification for their use is needed. The ground rules for the language used throughout the article should be to use the terms which each side likes to have used (no edit wars between "pro-choice" and "pro-murder" or "pro-life" and "pro-non-adult-life," please).

::I am certain that each side has no trouble seeing the "spin" represented by the ''other'' side's term. They're absolutely wretched and I have to think it would be very helpful if the two factions could bring themselves to call themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (where it's understood that "abortion" is short for "the continuing availability of legalized abortion.)

::They may be so familiar as to not to require definition, but they are ''certainly'' not "self-evident." A man from Mars would never guess in a million years what "pro-choice" means, or that a "pro-lifer" can support capital punishment. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:::Pro-lifers cannot support capital punishment; that's an oxymoron. The main force in the fight against abortion is the Catholic church, and they have made it extremely clear that a "culture of life" cannot be consistent with the death penalty; look up some of the references-- [http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/] for example.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:45, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*I personally know some people who are indeed a) Roman Catholic, b) against abortion, and c) against the death penalty. I certainly didn't mean to imply that all "pro-lifers" support death penalty. Many do not. But I don't believe that people who self-describe as "pro-life" can be assumed to be against the death penalty, nor do I think that the term is generally understood to include that. I'm willing to be corrected on that if I'm wrong. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::Due diligence:

::::*Well, for what it's worth: American Heritage Dictionary gives only one meaning, and it's "Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion."[http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/P0590500.html]. Merriam-Webster online simply says "antiabortion."[http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/pro-life]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)

::::*National Right-to-Life's website, under "issues," includes abortion, euthanasia, Medicare, and human cloning. Capital punishment is apparently not considered by them to be a right-to-life issue. Their [http://www.nrlc.org/Missionstatement.htm mission statement] says specifically "The Committee does not have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, capital punishment, and national defense." Their factsheet on the [http://www.nrlc.org/Federal/ICPA/ICPAfactsheet.html Innocent Child Protection Act] says "This bill does ''not'' reflect any point of view on the desirability or appropriateness of imposing capital punishment on persons convicted of premeditated murder or other grave crimes."

::::I actually think that particular website is avoiding the issue, and I suspect it's because there's a wide spectrum of opinion on capital punishment within the "pro-life" community. I happen to agree with you that pro-life ''should'' imply opposition to capital punishment, but I don't think it does. That's exactly why I think it's a dishonest term. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:13, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:'''REPLY''' Thanks, Dpbsmith, for moving this discussion over here, and I apologize for only getting back to everyone until now. The abortion article never references "pro-choice", and its passing references to "pro-life" near the end can be changed. In fact, I'll remove them now for you.

: Most people in the abortion movement on both sides reject any analogy between abortion and the death penalty. The same could be said for abortion and war. The issues are very, very different. Criminal punishment is based on retribution and deterrence. Those are not factors in abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)

==Portugal==
I'm not sure that the Portuguese still make abortion illegal. I heard recently that they had a referendum on the issue and they voted to legalize, but the voter turnout was too low for it to count. Last I heard, the ruling party had stated that they were going to enforce the ruling, but I'd assume there would be some challenges from the opposition, so it's definitely worth following. Either way, a factcheck needs to be done on the first bit.--[[User:John|John]] 19:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)
:You're right. The law legalising abortion within the first 10 weeks of pregnancy comes into effect real soon.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2053831,00.html]

== Article weight ==

There seem to be issues of weight- almost three quarters of the article as it currently stands deals with potential health complications of abortion, while there is almost no details of the history of abortion or abortion outside the US. I'm a bit puzzled that this level of detail is in here but a single sentence detailing the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" is removed out of concerns of conciseness. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:26, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Moreover, this article tells nothing about the types of abortions or the procedures used. Why isn't that the article on abortion has no information actually about abortions? --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bible==
the Abortion article does not mention that Abortion is inconsistent with the 6th commandment "You shall not murder". The Bible, being the word of God, is a infallible moral guide as to the behaviour that God wants us to uphold. Regardless of the (very strong) scientific arguments against abortion the strongest argument (IMHO) against is the 6th commandment. I apppreciate your views.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:48, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The bible proposes no scientific arguments at all against abortion. A commandment is merely a command issue by a higher power, there is no scientific proof shown in it at all. Religion simply puts forward a moral argument. --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 18:19, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The Bible contains very little proven fact, either. --[[User:Brooker|Brooker]]

== Seriously, please add this to the article ==

<div style="width: 70%; margin: 0 15% 1em 15%; text-align: center; background-color: #DEE6ED; padding: 0.5em; border: solid 1px #6699CC;">
This article has been identified as not maintaining a neutral point of view. You can and are encouraged to make this article better by contributing. This article may contain opinions, a one-sided bias, or information without proper citation that could be considered opinion. Please be encouraged to edit this article by removing opinions, presenting multiple points of view, and/or adding citations. Please remember to abide by [[The Conservapedia Commandments]].
</div>
<includeonly>[[Category:Articles needing major improvement]]</includeonly>

*Support. I'm Catholic and absolutely against abortion, but I think the article is anything but neutral. I appreciate that this is a conservative website but that doesn't mean that we have to push our agenda and beliefs right from the beginning of the article

==Proposed new section==
While some aspects of the Wikipedia articles on abortion are quite confronting, the fact that this article only devotes a single sentence to a definition is a bit surprising. The current article doesn't actually say anything about the "rightness" of abortion, only that it causes health problems later, and used to be illegal.

Since the article is protected from editing, I propose a new section here --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
===Alternatives to abortion===
Many people oppose the use of abortion in any or all cases where it might be considered by other people.

The obvious way to avoid an abortion is for the woman not to get [[pregnancy|pregnant]] in the first place. This can best be achieved by abstinence from [[sex]] before [[marriage]]. If a woman does have sex but does not wish to risk becoming pregnant, the couple should use [[contraception]] to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy.

Once a woman has become pregnant, the only alternative to abortion is to allow the pregnancy to proceed to a live birth. If the parents are unable or do not wish to bring up the child, it can be offered for [[adoption]]. Otherwise one or both parents will look after the child in a [[family]] until it is old enough to move out of home on his or her own.

:*Hmm. When I was at Law school my tutor said that the only 100% way to not get pregnant was abstinence (it was a seminar on the Abortion Act). I don't understand why that is such a difficult concept for people to grasp these days. --[[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]][[User talk:Eldestport|Talk!]][[Special:Contributions/Eldestport|Work]] 05:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: This argument tends to fall apart for victims of sexual abuse and rape. Of late, I've also seen fringe left-wingers using images of the Virgin Mary with the subtitle "Abstinence doesn't always work" as a joke. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

:::Which argument falls apart? All of the above is true even if the sex was involuntary. I'm sure the trauma of the act is magnified by the effects, but if a woman, her friends or relatives believe "abortion is murder", then it doesn't change based on how the conception occurred. I just hope and pray that nobody I know and love is ever in that situation. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 08:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Apparently this proposed paragraph is not acceptable for the article in its present state as it is not suitably referenced. I'm not quite sure specifically which sentences need reference, but I'm finding it surprisingly difficult to find reliable references on the internet that you don't need an abortion if you don't have sex! Even any pages I can find about alternatives look more biased and pushy than the paragraph above that needs to referenced to be acceptable. [[User:Eldestport|Eldestport]], are you able to reference it from your law book? --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 00:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==danger of life and abortion needs discussion
Poland, Portugal and Irland permit abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. A discussion of this topic is deerly needed. -- SchiFra.

==Add Category:Abortion==
Since the page is edit blocked, please add '''Category:Abortion''' [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Definition of abortion==
According to the linked definition part 1 (and these [http://www2.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/mwmednlm?book=Medical&va=abortion online] [http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?abortion medical dictionaries]), the term abortion relates to the termination of pregnancy, whether planned (induced abortion) or unplanned (spontaneous abortion ak miscarriage). As the everyday useage and the medical terminology are conflicting, I think that this should be clarified and the page possibly split. [[User:Smudgepuss|Smudgepuss]] 16:57, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==This article violates the Third Commandment of Conservapedia==
Abortion is clearly not family-friendly. If [[Sex]] isn't allowed, this article has to go. --[[User:ReaganLives|ReaganLives]] 20:49, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

anything else you want to censor? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 16:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

As other posters have said, the very first line of this article contains a startling inaccuracy. Abortion is the purely medical term for the ending of a pregnancy before the foetus can have independent life. Most abortions are caused by Nature, or depending on your personal beliefs, God. Surprisingly, humans have great difficulty getting pregnant, compared to most other mammals, and just as much problems staying pregnant - at least a third, and up to one half of all conceptions which implant, naturally abort before term, although many of these before the mother realises she is pregnant. On a note not wholly related to abortion, the joining of a human egg and sperm is not the begining of a potential human life, it is the begining of TWO or THREE potential human beings, even under natural conditions. It just so happens that identical twins and triplets are even more prone to spontaneous abortion than their single brothers and sisters. KT

== Reply to the above ==

The user Scott sent me over here to respond to the above comments, but I didn't find anything here to add to the content page. The content page is a high-quality, thoroughly sourced description of information often censored elsewhere (e.g., Wikipedia omits much of this information). Any additions would have to be of the same quality and cited support.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:59, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and Breast Cancer==

In the first sentence of that article section, it states that studies show abortion causes breast cancer, supported by 16/17 statistically significant cases. In a statistical sense, the word "cause" or "causation" is to be avoided. Nothing can ever be proved to cause another thing. Rather, the sentence should state "there is a high correlation evidenced by the studies." Statistics class has ground this principle into me, and so i feel the need to point it out. I would change it myself, but this appears to be another one of those articles that needs "Big Brother" to ensure conservative bias.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

To balance the assertions about abortion and breast cancer in this article, it ought to be shown that many factors affect breast cancer rates - for example diet: http://unisci.com/stories/20021/0104023.htm

and racial grouping: http://www.womenshealthnetwork.org/advocacy/wocbreastca/natam.htm

Life is full of risks. Your risk of dying of breast cancer is about the same as your risk from radon by living in Cornwall: http://www.cplusc.co.uk/risks.html (Can't say I've noticed women fleeing Cornwall in droves...)

A higher risk factor for breast cancer than abortion, research published today reveals, is the eating of red meat. See: Red meat ‘raises risks of breast cancer’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/2007/04/04/nmeat04.xml

Breastfeeding your baby greatly reduces your risk of breast cancer. Having large numbers of children and breastfeeding them all reduces the risk of breast cancer:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,8150,757869,00.html

Obesity increases the risk of breast cancer: http://society.guardian.co.uk/cancer/story/0,,686105,00.html

The National Breast Cancer Coalition does not endorse the view that induced abortions increase the risk of breast cancer - one would have thought this kind of organisation would be the first to look at the evidence that exists, since there is no profit in abortion for them. Nor do the American Cancer Society and the World Health Organisation endorse this view.

Ireland, where abortion is illegal, has one of the highest rates of breast cancer in the EU and the trend for incidence at younger ages (where abortion rates are usually highest) is downwards:
http://www.actuaries.org.uk/files/pdf/library/proceedings/health2001/Jeffery.pdf

It's dishonest to write an article that greatly overstates the connection between abortion and breast cancer and doesn't put it in the context of all the other things women do that increase or decrease their risk. Getting in a car any day of the week puts you at infinitely higher risk of death than having an abortion: http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

There are legitimate arguments against abortion, but this kind of manipulative shroud-waving isn't among them. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 11:19 4 April 2007 (EDT)

According to Reuters, the largest study ever done on the abortion/cancer link has come to the conclusion that they are not correlated. According to the article, this is going to "fit" with the U.S. National Cancer Institute. Link: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23311428.htm --[[User:TempestHead|TempestHead]] 16:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Which medical school did the Reuters' reporter go to, or how many cases of breast cancer has he reviewed? Childbirth prevents breast cancer, and termination of childbirth increases breast cancer. By the way, I don't care how many uninformed biased articles might say that 2+2=5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately you also don't seem to care about the number of methodologically sound studies that find no ABC link. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:08, 23 April 2007 (EDT) 

:::You may wish to consider though, why so many do. Most studies usually have a 95% threshold for saying there is a statistical correlation. So if there was no statistical correlation between breast cancer and abortion, we would expect that given 20 studies that 18 would show there is no correlation, 1 would show a statical correlation that abortion leads to an increased rate of breast cancer, and 1 would show that abortion lowers the chances of having breast cancer. For so many studies to show a correlation, even if there are many that do not, chances are very high that some level of correlation exists. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:23, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

== Historical view of abortion ==

Abortion has been an issue for a long while, though historians and anthropologists rarely write about it. Yet, if abortion became illegal in every country on Earth, with the most severe, harshest penalties imaginable, abortions would still happen. Women who really didn't want to carry to term would find a way. Medically trained people would perform black market sorts of abortions here and there. It is a human issue, an emotional issue. Our grandmothers knew this and their grandmothers. Today's modern medicine allows safe (for the mother) abortion in most cases. Today's law proposes that the decision might not reside in the realm of the mother, but could be mandated, to the benefit of society. Let us not fool ourselves, abortion might be illegal but abortion happens anyway. Who can legally try a woman for falling down stairs or falling against the edge of a table? The article does not, at this time, confront the real reasons why abortion is an issue (my opinion). [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 13:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

To add to the above, in Thailand, procuring an illegal abortion is subject to the death penalty. Yet the midwives there are the ones mothers turn to for this service, the same people they turn to to deliver their babies safely. And much as the the ultra right may hate the idea, midwives throughout the ages have always carried out this function, unknown to (or ignored by) males. Even with legal terminations, girls still go to their mothers, not to their fathers, and there is many a Pro-lifer who has no idea what his mother's, wife's, sisters' and daughters' reproductive history is. KT

: Well, fine, burglary and drugs and prostitution and everything else one can imagine will always exist too, no matter how harsh the penalties. Here in the U.S. there is an abortion industry that owns one of the two major political parties (the Democrats), and most women who have an abortion have no idea that they are increasing their risk of breast cancer and future premature birth. The abortion industry does everything it can to prevent that information reaching their potential customers. The tobacco industry did the same thing in the 1940s and 1950s and 1960s. The tobacco industry even got the American Medical Association (AMA) to help it cover up how smoking causes cancer. History repeats itself with abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

It's anything but an industry in UK, here Termination of Pregnancy (as you describe abortion) is carried out mainly by the National Health Service. Hospitals in our country are under financial constraints (private insurance does not pay for it), yet still publically funded doctors perform these procedures for the benefit of the woman concerned, and no other reason. They do NOT receive financial reward, and it is the taxpayer who pays. And the British taxpayer is happy to pay for this.

: I'm not an expert on the UK by any means, but I'm confident physicians perform the operation for payment, not for charity. In the U.S., the operation has little risk of malpractice, is done outside of hospitals and in profitable clinics, and often the physicians do abortions after they have been excluded from their own specialty and/or from hospitals.

: Your claim that the British taxpayer "is happy to pay for this" strikes me as incredulous also. The British taxpayer is ''forced'' to pay for this. If the Brits were "happy to pay for this" then taxes wouldn't be needed for it, and it could be privately funded!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
::Aschlafly - I think you aren't clear about how the NHS works. It isn't funded by taxation. It's funded by National Insurance, which all working people pay in the same way as Americans pay Social Security, and it covers the same range of things as Social Security except that it covers health care as well. Because of inadequacies in the NHS, some people choose to pay privately for a termination of pregnancy, but the law in the UK states that two doctors have to agree that there are satisfactory grounds for it. The majority of UK opinion supports the availability of legal abortion on the NHS, though there are a number of people who would prefer to see the upper time limit (currently 24 weeks) brought down to 20-22 weeks. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]

You may also like to consider that the majority of women who have terminations (abortions) either already have families, or go on to have families. No woman ever takes this decision lightly, and many women have this procedure to safeguard their real family (people who already exist). KT

: Unfortunately those women who do have future children (and many can't, by the way) have greatly increased their chance of premature birth, and the severe injuries that causes. Those women should be told that, just as informed consent is required for any other operation. Surely you don't think that the women considering an abortion should not be told?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

If abortions 'causes' breast cancer, is it terminations of pregnancy 'cause' breast cancer, or/and miscarriages (spontaneous abortion)'cause' breast cancer. If spontaneous abortion causes breast cancer, the solution is to never get pregnant, and avoid the 50% risk of natural abortion which comes with every pregnancy. Would that suit Mr/Ms Aschafly; or would this defy the Biblical injunction to go forth and mulitply? KT

==Portugal==
Could someone remove Portugal from the countries that abortion is illegal in? They voted for it to become legal a few days ago.
--[[User:Daerean|Daerean]] 17:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: I thought the vote failed because of low turnout. In other words, the law did not change.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The PM sent a bill allowing abortion in Portugal that passed in parliament on the 15 March 2007, Accoring to the AP "The bill is now subject to presidential ratification in the next 20 days but becomes law only after published, a process that could take several months." [http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/03/09/portugal.abortion.ap/index.html] So yes, it's still illegal as of today. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 17:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::A severe health risk for the mother has always been an accepted medical reason for abortion in Portugal.

This is a genuine query to every poster on this page. Somewhere in the Old Testement, I think Dueteronomy, there is an edict on how long a woman remains unclean after abortion/miscarriage, and says something like a woman is unclean for 60 days after aborting a male, but only 30 days after aborting a female. Can anyone please point out the Bilical reference, refresh my memory. Many thanks KT

== Blocked? ==

So much for a free encyclopedia, when all the important articles are blocked. Well done. [[User:Theonlyedge|Theonlyedge]] 20:46, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Not ''all'' the important articles - just the ones where a conservative view might differ significantly from that "liberal" alternative, Wikipedia. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Incidentally, Conservapedia is not a ''free'' encyclopedia, but a ''trustworthy'' encyclopedia. If vandalism or edit clashes break out then pages should be blocked. --[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

: What do the above comments have to do with whether something is "free"? Nothing as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:58, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== death rate ==

The first paragraph of the "Other health effects" section is
:''A study published in the Southern Medical Journal observed that there are higher death rates association with women who have abortion, and that these higher death rates persist over time and across socioeconomic boundaries.''
Apart from "association" where it presumably should say "associated", I find it surprising that the death rate of women who have had abortions is higher than in women who haven't, given that the death rate amongst women who have not had abortions is effectively 100%! That is, ''all'' women who have not had abortions die eventually, but proportionately more women who ''have'' had abortions die? "110% of women who had abortions die" would be a good headline. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 09:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I was hoping i could edit the article to make it less biased and more factual. I want this site to be taken seriously, and it's articles like this one that destroy it's credibility. If allowed to edit this article, i would not take it from one bias to another, i would simply remove some of the opinion and make it purely factual.--[[User:Sersabian|Sersabian]] 17:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* Could this article be added to [[[[:Category:Abortion]]| ]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:12, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:* Service with a smile. Thanks! --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 03:16, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
::*<nowiki>:</nowiki>D There's your smile! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:17, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Billion Dollar Industry ==

There is a footnote for the "abortion is now a billion dollar industry" factlet here: [http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/03/09/fetal.tissue/index.html]. A very quick search of the page yields no mention of the words "billion" "dollar" or "industry" and a more thorough search discovers that the article is, in fact, dealing with a 2000 congressional hearing over the illegal sale of fetal tissue. I'm sure this was just an oversight... could a source be provided for the billion dollar indutry fact? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 06:10, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
:What, no one sysop has this article on their watchlist? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 14:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

I just noticed the same thing that [[User:Myk|Myk]] mentioned above but no one seems to have addressed it. If the sentence is going to make the billion-dollar-industry claim, then shouldn't the sources, you know, back that statement up somehow instead of being remotely and tangentially related?--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:33, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

== Scientific/Medical background needed ==

This article on abortion either needs the medical background behind abortion (reasons for abortions and methods of abortion) and reasons why abortion can be beneficial added or its title changed to 'Reasons Why Abortion is Wrong'. This is another biased article that is lacking in facts about the topic itself. --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 15:51, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Articles I would like to see written at Conservapedia ==

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== American Cancer Society states abortions do NOT cause breast cancer ==

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_6x_Can_Having_an_Abortion_Cause_or_Contribute_to_Breast_Cancer.asp?sitearea=

You all lose. Abortions aren't bad. Get over it.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 00:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

: Get serious. The American Medical Association used to defend smoking too. That is because it is easy for an industry to influence the handful of people who run these organizations at any given time.

: If you're going to support abortion, at least support giving the mothers information so that they can make an informed decision.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

So once an agency, it's always wrong, following Conservative's line of logic @ [[Evolution]] - "science was wrong once, therefore it's always suspect"? Abortion clinics are not run by corporations that funnel money to the AMA like Philip-Morris did. You get serious, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Giving the mothers the correct information is indeed the right thing to do. Which is why to claim that 16/17 studies show a link is either misinformed or untruthful. I don't know where that claim came from, but if you search yourself you'd find a lot more than 16 studies showing no statistically significant link. To make it a little easier I've listed 24 of them on my talk page. Have you taken a look? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:34, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Murray, they'll argue that all contrary sources are "liberal biased." Facts don't matter to these people.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ames, I have no doubt that you're right. Just hoping that some people who read the article might end up here on the talk page and realize that that article is basically one big lie. Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, so I'll keep tilting away! :) [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps a link to the new breast cancer article might be added to this section? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Murray, I admire your persistence. I hope that you change at least one mind; that'll make it worth it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks - and right back at you. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:11, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Listen up==

Ok, folks, there are many reasons to be against abortion, almost all of them moral. I am pretty liberal but I have some problems with it myself. HOWEVER, adding specious medical claims does not help the case. ''At this point'' there is '''no''' credible evidence linking abortion to any malignancies. Move on, discuss the real reasons to oppose abortion.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
And by the way, Im working on the Breast cancer article.

:Was just thinking about the "16 out of 17 statistically significant studies" thing. Aschafly, I initially interpreted that as you claiming that most studies that have looked at the relationship have found that abortion is a risk factor. But now it occurs to me that it likely actually means that there are 16 studies finding that it is a significant risk factor, 1 finding that it's a significant protective factor, and some unlisted number finding no significant relationship. Without knowing the number finding no relationship, it's completely meaningless. As I posted above, there are at least 24 studies in that category, and my search was not that comprehensive. It's nonsensical to claim that when less than half of the studies find a relationship that it definitely exists, and suggests misunderstanding of statistical significance. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:16, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Quite astute, young grasshopper. Given all the other reasons to oppose abortion, there is no good reason to just make stuff up.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 13:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

=Bizarre fixation on abortion=

I'm wondering how Schlafly's slightly freaky obsession with abortion (see eg that the most notable feature of [[Wisconsin]] is its abortion statistics) squares with the not-in-front-of-the-kids squeamishness which pervades other articles of a [[sexual intercourse|reproductive]] or genital-related nature. Are home-schooled children allowed to know about abortion without knowing how a woman gets into the situation of being able to have an abortion? [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 15:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

See [[Talk:Breast cancer]]. That may help answer your question.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 15:45, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Confused ==

Please see [[talk:Abortion alternatives]] to see why I am confused. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

== But what about the benefits of abortion? ==

This article neglects to mention the benefits of abortion, for example:
*Saving the mother's life
*Protecting the mother's physical and mental health
*Preventing a severely disabled child being born into a world where it would just suffer
I know that these points can be debated and there are others that could be added. Just remember that debate does not belong in the article! --[[User:Tomt|TomT]] 16:53, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abortion and breast cancer, again. ==

See http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 19:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I think we need to take on the abortion-breast cancer arguments from Wikipedia and JoshuaZ==

I think we need to take on this information from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#Breast_cancer

For example, why do pro-life people say selection bias is responsible in regards to studies showing there is no abortion and breast cancer connection? I realize that Wikipedia gave this reference in regards to the selection bias possibility: http://bcpinstitute.org/printabc_html.htm '''However, are there more sources? '''

I think this article needs to be developed more so Conservapedias footnoted references discuss the Wikipedia information.

I also think we should take on the link above from JoshuaZ which is this link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/04/23/abortion.cancer.ap/index.html

I personally have not made up my mind on this matter. Additional information from the pro-life side would be helpful.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

: This isn't a pro-life v. pro-choice issue. I'm basically pro-life. That doesn't alter what the scientific consensus or the evidence says about this matter one iota. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:56, 23 April 2007 (EDT) (restoring comment that seemed to get accidentally lost in the edting).

::I really don't understand why there's quite so much focus on the breast cancer thing here. Of course abortion will have some risks, as does any medical procedure. But guess what? There are also risks associated with pregnancy (such as an increased risk of thrombosis) and with many contraceptives (eg the breast cancer link with the pill). Yet strangely those things aren't mentioned in this article. I wonder why?
::The point isn't that '''Abortion carries risks! Abortion Bad!''' but that all the options carry risks and it is down to women to decide which ones they consider worth taking and which ones not. And before anyone leaps in to say that abstinence is the risk free choice, remember that women who never have children are at a higher risk of breast cancer than those who have had children. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Even the supporters of abortion don't deny that preventing childbirth increases risk of breast cancer. Guess what? Abortion prevents childbirth, and therefore increases breast cancer risk. It increases breast cancer risks in additional ways also.

: Where's the Harvard study, or any other study that tries to deny this? I'd be happy to analyize the study. Its lack of availability, however, does not lend credibility to exaggerated press reports.

: A few years ago, Harvard researchers claimed to have found a link between gun ownership and increased harm to children. My simple review of their paper revealed severe flaws and biases, and the ''Economist'' published my letter debunking it. In addition, the Harvard researchers were uncooperative in releasing their data. Looks we have the same old, same old with this latest abortion study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Andrew, um have you even looked at this study? That seems a bit presumptious this early on. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:30, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Joshua, I have been reading the study tonight. That's what I've been doing. It would be even more "presumptuous" to assume the study is valid without reading it. And, by the way, there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand. Do you really fall in that tiny 20%? I'm skeptical, and wonder why you volunteered that you're "pro-life". It's amazing how many people volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone. No one cares about a self-proclaimed Democrat who says he favors Bush, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Since you're reading it, I'd be curious what you think about it. My initial impression is that the most serious possible problem is that the disproportionate number in the sample who were premenopausal (a problem they acknowledge). However, I'm not aware of any biological reason to think that pre and post menopausal females would have significantly different responses. As to your claim that "there is about an 80% correlation between people who are pro-evolution and those who support abortion on demand" -I'd be very curious as to how you arrived at that claim although it would not surprise me if something of that sort were true. I would in any event point out that 20% isn't exactly tiny and that a number of prominent conservatives share this set of views such as John Derbyshire and George Will. As to your comment about people volunteerring "volunteer a position in order to make an argument on the other side, as though that volunteered position should persuade anyone" - if I had been doing that it would have been a nice rhetorical remark and you'd be correct to observe that it would carry no logical weight. My point was however exactrly that this wasn't an issue of one "side" as opposed to another, but an issue of science. Not everything is "liberal" v "conservative" and this would definitely be an example. (I should note however that the insistence in this case that abortion must be such a dangerous procedure seems to be a possible example of belief-overkill). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:10, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

It's good to know that you guys are so concerned about women's health. I do hope you are going to campaign for it to be illegal for women not to breastfeed their babies, since this could really slash the rate of breast cancer. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2570 It affects the baby's health too, since a formula-fed baby is more than three times as likely to be hospitalized for severe respiratory illness as an exclusively breastfed baby. http://www.babyfriendly.org.uk/items/research_detail.asp?item=94. When am I going to see Conservapedia condemn all those mothers who withhold breast milk from their babies? --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, women should be told that also. I'm for telling the truth to women, rather than having abortionists exploit them the way that the tobacco industry did years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Now that is a very strange comparison. How many women do you think are persuaded to get pregnant with a baby they want and then have it aborted because of some massive advertising campaign? And I really do think you ought to stop stating so unequivocally that abortion is a leading cause of breast cancer, when all the discussions and links that have taken place on this and the breast cancer talk page seem to show that the consensus of medical opinion is that there is no such definite link. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 22:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, there is massive advertising for abortion. Ride a subway in a minority community sometime and look at the ads. Does that influence women? You bet. The ads wouldn't be there if they weren't effective.

: History repeats itself. The tobacco industry denied its cause of cancer for decades, and got lots of other people to deny it also, including the AMA.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Let me be sure I understand you - are you of the opinion that a woman pregnant with a baby she wants will be influenced to go and have an abortion by seeing an advert on the subway?--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 23:40, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

: The abortionists wouldn't be paying for the ads unless they had an influence. Would you pay for an advertisement that didn't have an influence???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy for your honesty. It's good to have it made really clear what your opinion of women is. Personally, as a middle aged women with three adult children and a long history of voluntary work with a childbirth organization as a breastfeeding counsellor, knowing many women who have had unwanted pregnancies (some terminated by abortion and some gone through to delivery and raising of the child) and many women who have had wanted pregnancies (some that have miscarried and some that have gone through to raising the child) I can say, hand on heart, that I do not know one who would have been influenced to terminate a wanted pregnancy by seeing an advert on the subway. But maybe you know a lot more dumb women than I do.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: Britinme, are you seriously saying that the abortion providers that pay for those ads are completely wasting their money???? Have you ever run a business or purchased advertising yourself???

: Tell you what. If you're being sincere, then I suggest you call Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and tell them your great idea for how they can save lots of money. Let me know how they response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Surely these adverts (which, by the way, I have never seen in my life) are to inform women of how to get a safe abortion rather than an unsafe one, and to encourage them to do it early rather than late? I can't see any woman who wants her baby deciding to change her mind just on the basis of some advert, that's crazy. [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 13:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I can't believe how many smart businessmen and businesswomen we have here. Silverfish, how about calling up the abortion providers and telling them how you know they are wasting their money on advertising! Don't you think that maybe, just maybe, the abortionists have already done studies and concluded that their money on advertising is money well-spent for their business???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

I think there are two things going on here which need to be distinguished:
#Many Christians are sad, knowing that human life begins at conception yet millions of girls and women choose [[elective abortion]] rather than bring their baby into the world
#There are studies linking elective abortion with a measurable increase in [[breast cancer]]

Emotionally, it may be difficult to deal with the linkage between the two issues. But this writing project is not just for homeschooled minors any more. It has become a project to create an encyclopedia. We'll just have to deal with these difficulties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:47, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed - any argument against abortion needs to hinge around the moral issues, because any unbiased look at the evidence concludes that the level of risk to the mother's health is actually higher from pregnancy than from abortion and that there is no significant link between abortion and breast cancer. A woman who is joyfully pregnant with a planned and wanted baby, or even pregnant with a baby that she didn't plan but feels able to raise herself or give birth to and give to adopters to raise, takes those risks willingly. People who oppose abortion need to put their efforts into helping and supporting women in the decision to have and raise the child, or to give it for adoption, because every time they distort or cherry-pick the evidence they undermine their own case.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 08:27, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

=Latest Harvard Study Deserves Inclusion=

This morning researchers at Harvard University released the results of a study they finished that surveyed 100,000 women over 10 years and failed to find any statistically significant link between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriages. This result seems to confirm the opinion of the National Cancer Institute's 2003 expert panel.

Related news article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423185607.htm

Study abstract:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/8/814

Full text of study:
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/167/8/814

Given the absolute prominence that this encyclopedia chooses to give to the question of a relationship between cancer and abortion, wouldn't it be required diligence to include this study (giving fair provenance to countering opinions and evidence of course)?

== Quick question ==

What's the Bible verse that says abortion is bad? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:29, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Exodus 20:13[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Thanks :D --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:32, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::That says "thou shalt not kill". I meant where does it say that life begins at conception. The "thou shalt not kill" rule has been ignored plenty; a la Crusades. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:34, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, it says "You are not to murder". For many of us, that includes life in the womb. I am probably a bit more liberal than some, in that I do feel it is ok to debate the issue, but if you believe, as i do, that an unborn child is human, then "No murder" applies.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:37, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
::I'm using the [http://www.bartleby.com/108/ Bartleby] online Bible, which claims to be KJV, and it says "thou shalt not kill". I just checked with my Revised Standard Version, and it says "thou shalt not kill" as well. Which version are you using? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:40, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, I have several versions, New International Version has the closest to the original language.[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 19:46, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Just to add, the implications of various translations can be quite large. There is an obvious difference between "dont kill" and "dont murder", including such issues as the death penalty, etc. Some will argue (perhaps correctly) that nearly-cannonical translations such as KJV can be taken as is since they are so widely accepted. I could go on forever, but I wont. [[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 20:00, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

===Round 2===
I never seem to have gotten a clear answer above, so I'll try again: Where does the Bible say that life ''begins at conception''? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:The lack of an answer so far is ''very'' encouraging. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:20, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

The idea that life begins at conception is not a universally shared one and actually a certain paradox exists because of that reason. The idea is that "potential life" is created at conception. Many people, apparently, believe that life begins at conception as a cell is formed, however whether this is actually life depends on your definition of "life". I assume that from a religious perspective one would assume that this is the moment where the soul enters the body and the soul is then released when it is killed and thus the moment it is actually immoral to cause the destruction of that life. To my understanding people of the Jewish faith believe that life begins with one's first breath. This being said I know of no reason why that definition has changed with Christianity, and I am not aware of any Bible verse that discusses when a soul enters a body. So, unless I'm wrong no biblical scriture mentions anything about abortion. It does bring up an interesting point in the process. The first ammendment of the American Bill of Rights protects the freedom of religion, thus providing a legal definition of when "life" occurs and making abortion prior to that point would be restricting the religious freedoms of others because it is creating morality where morality is unclear and different according to different religions and beliefs. --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:36, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== Logical problem with breast cancer link. ==

I see a logical problem with what appears to be a an attempt to link abortion to a number of health problems. Opposition to abortion is not based on the notion of risks to the mother, it is based on the risk to the fetus. There is a 100% chance of fetal death. If studies showed conclusively that say: Abortion had no effect on cancer risk and Early term abortion was safer for the mother than full term delivery (Which it is), pretty much all the people who oppose abortion now would still oppose abortion, because of the fetal death issue.

--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 22:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

: The logical flaw is yours. The link between abortion and breast cancer should be disclosed to the mother regardless of one's views on abortion. It is the abortion industry and its allies and recipients of federal funding who have a motivation to cover up this link, which cannot seriously be disputed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:14, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Any doctor should disclose all known risks and benefits for any procedure, and my comment did not seek to dispute the existence of a link. I am not a doctor/cancer researcher and would not pretend to know about that. But the problem is that if it could be shown that an abortion presented lower overall risk, making the choice to abort based on that would still be the height of selfishness and would in my view be immoral. What I am saying is that if you frame an argument against abortion around the relative risks/benefits to the mother you are positioning the debate in some dangerous and territory. I think it is safe to say that the majority of people who seek abortions do so because they feel that they are too poor, too busy or otherwise unable to care for the child and maintain their current standard of living. From a certain point of view they may be correct. That still makes the choice a very selfish and immoral one, and as such thinking about the issue from a risk reward point of view if flawed, some people will always come out on the side of abortion. Essentially the way to frame this is: the doctor has two patients, the mother and the fetus. The principal of "first do no harm" implies that the doctor should not take an action that would harm either patient.--[[User:Irish|Irish]] 00:16, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Consider to include in "See also" section==

I just created an article on the [[National Right to Life Committee]], it might be good to add this to the "see also" section in this article. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:20, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: Done. Thanks much!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:39, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Prince of Wales

2007-08-20T14:43:58Z

Porthos: Please see my reasoning in the comments section.

'''Prince of Wales''' is the title given to the male heir to the [[British|British]] throne, having been instituted by King [[Edward I]] for his son, the future [[Edward II]] which legend tells us was at Caernarvon Castle in 1284, but was in reality at Lincoln 17 years later. Currently, the eldest son of [[Queen Elizabeth II]], [[Prince Charles]], holds the title. These days the office has no administrative function, and is purely honorific.

By law the wife of the Prince of Wales is titled the [[Princess of Wales]]. Prince Charles's first wife, [[Diana, Princess of Wales]], held the title from her marriage, and continued to hold it after her divorce until her death. When Prince Charles married for a second time, there was some debate as to whether his new wife Camilla would be entitled to the style. The Lord Chancellor reviewed the case and determined that unless there was a legislative change, the wife of the Prince of Wales was automatically the Princess of Wales. Camilla, while legally the Princess of Wales, however chose not to use the title Princess of Wales, but instead [[Duchess of Cornwall]], which is a title held concurrently by all Princesses of Wales. If Charles ascends to the British throne, Camilla will legally be titled [[Queen Consort]] but she has indicated that she will rather go by the honorific [[Princess Consort]]. Female heirs to the throne in their own right are not legally Princesses of Wales.

The name "Wales" is often used by the Prince of Wales and his family as a surname.

[[Category:Royalty]]

Talk:Prince of Wales

2007-08-20T14:43:20Z

Porthos: New page: The phrase "entitled to the title" is rather clumsy. The word '''style''' refers to a manner of address, as used to refer to persons who hold a title or position of authority. It's a bet...

The phrase "entitled to the title" is rather clumsy. The word '''style''' refers to a manner of address, as used to refer to persons who hold a title or position of authority. It's a better choice of word to use to closely after the word "entitled".--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 10:43, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Prince of Wales

2007-08-20T14:22:06Z

Porthos:

Prince of Wales

2007-08-20T14:21:40Z

Porthos:

'''Prince of Wales''' is the title given to the male heir to the [[British|British]] throne, having been instituted by King [[Edward I]] for his son, the future [[Edward II]] which legend tells us was at Caernarvon Castle in 1284, but was in reality at Lincoln 17 years later. Currently, the eldest son of [[Queen Elizabeth II]], [[Prince Charles]], holds the title. These days the office has no administrative function, and is purely honorific.

By law the wife of the Prince of Wales is titled the Princess of Wales. Prince Charles's first wife, [[Diana, Princess of Wales]], held the title from her marriage, and continued to hold it after her divorce until her death. When Prince Charles married for a second time, there was some debate as to whether his new wife Camilla would be entitled to the style. The Lord Chancellor reviewed the case and determined that unless there was a legislative change, the wife of the Prince of Wales was automatically the Princess of Wales. Camilla, while legally the Princess of Wales, however chose not to use the title Princess of Wales, but instead [[Duchess of Cornwall]], which is a title held concurrently by all Princesses of Wales. If Charles ascends to the British throne, Camilla will legally be titled [[Queen Consort]] but she has indicated that she will rather go by the honorific [[Princess Consort]]. Female heirs to the throne in their own right are not legally Princesses of Wales.

The name "Wales" is often used by the Prince of Wales and his family as a surname.

[[Category:Royalty]]

Talk:Slavery

2007-08-20T03:01:12Z

Porthos:

Why is there no reference to Biblical slavery apart from the captivity of the Jews in Egypt? I know that the enslavement of others by the Jews is controversial (in that the Bible doesn't seem to "condemn" the practice, but I'm sure there are good reasons why either I'm wrong in that or for God's overlooking the practice.

In any event, it is a debate I often have with moral relativists and I was hoping to find something about it here in my own (Christan) people.

: I agree completely. I have posted several Biblical references. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 01:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"ancient Egypt, where Hebrews were slaves."

There's absolutely no historical evidence for this outside of Exodus.

*The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Chronology==
Is there a particular reason that it goes ancient, modern, biblical? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:37, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Abomination ==

Can't anyone fix this page? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Is this a joke? ==
I mean. Nothing is cited. And the whole thing is a big, fallacious argument in favor of slavery. - [[User:Moriarty]]
*Did you not see my note, about your post? If you think you are up to it, fix it! That is what a Wiki is for. --~ [[User:TK|SysopTK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I started by deleting the parts about slaves having free housing, food and health care. As an administrator you might want to delete things like that a little quicker because they make this website look alot like some of the white supremist sites. Hopefully, not what you want.
-Gasmonkey

== Recent Removal of Bible passages ==

MountainDew, could you please explain the justification for deleting the quotes from the Bible regarding slavery that were recently added by Spoon.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 06:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The presence of verses in the bible which appear to support slavery in the most direct interpretation is an embarassment to Christianity, but ignoring them is dishonest and will not make them disappear. I think we should keep them, but see if we can find some anti-slavery NT quotes too. - BornAgainBrit

*And you feel, either of you, that biblical quotes are so important in an encyclopedia, explaining slavery to contemporary users, how? Contrary to what you seem to think, this is not the Bible Encyclopedia, but the Conservapedia. MountainDew is a Sysop here, like myself, and is charged with editing and keeping entries on track, and fair. Maybe you guys should spend at least some time researching the slave trade, and maybe contemporary slavery practices, like the White Slave Trade, and that would be most helpful to this page. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 15:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: My question for MountainDew was because he ''only'' removed the Bible passages which appeared to justify the slave trade and kept in only those passages which appeared to condemn it. If he had removed all of the passages I would not have had a problem. You said yourself that the job of a SYSOP is to be fair, that edit was not. For me the Bible has nothing to do with my opinions on the slave trade (in case I need to say it - it is repugnant to me), but exactly because he is a SYSOP I assumed that they Bible entries were wanted here.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:15, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, ''unlike some users'', we are concerned with the article as a whole, not just matters of religion. Since the Bible does not support slavery, but merely recognizes conditions as they were at the time, it would be unfair to use the Bible to justify any form of salvery. What was that bit about rendering unto Caeser? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 17:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: As I tried to imply, I do not see a reason for there to be ''any'' Bible passages in this article. But if there are any, then they should show how it was from both sides of the argument, i.e. the article should be fair - look at [[User_talk:MountainDew#Spoon|this]] exchange regarding [[User:Spoon]]'s posts - cherry-picking what you want or don't want should not be an option and I wanted to question [[User:MountainDew]]'s employing of this tactic. I'd remove all passages but I assume that they'd be reverted. I agree with you that the Bible cannot be read with a 21st century morality. My vote is for the creation of a new article on "Slavery in the Bible" if anyone wants one. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
*I see where you are coming from, however I am loath to keep making pages just for religious zealots (and their anti-religion counterparts), for every article in the Conservapedia. Since 99% of the humans on this planet are not in favor of slavery, I don't see a need to "balance" such things. Slavery is against the wishes of God, and most all of his children, to put it in a religious parlance. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Fair point, well made. Can we remove the Bible passages from the article? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*I think we can remove anything that represents the Bible and/or God is in favor of Slavery, and leave the Biblical support against slavery. As I said, there really isn't a legitimate argument in favor of slavery, so no need to have a "balance". And if someone is in favor of it, they need to find another site. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

#Balance or not, those arguments are amoung the most liked by anti-christian debaters. Im sure you have seen how much they love to point to one verse or another of the OT and declare 'God is a brutal oppressor!' You can ignore them on the grounds that noone today agrees with them, but they still remain right there, printed in every copy of the old testament. And they ''were'' used in support of slavery, once. Really, what type of Christian chooses to just ignore a verse because it is unpopular? The appropriate response is not to remove these quotes, but to write an argument that Christianity does not support slavery. Optionally, moving them to a 'slavery in the bible' page may be a good idea too. - Suricou

*Slavery, what it is, and it's history, is not a biblical discussion! This is not the Religiouspedia. It is the Conservapedia, one where, '''when it is appropriate''', will not discount religious or conservative thought. There isn't a valid argument in favor of slavery that I can think of, so the point of including thoughts that are pro-slavery here would be what? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::But if it's not a Biblical discussion, why are you so against either removing the section on "slavery in the Bible" or adding to it those references which seem to support the notion of slavery? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 19:10, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*(Faints dead away) Why am I against? Aaarrrrgh! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please answer my question. You said that slavery is not a Biblical issue (and I wholeheartedly agree) yet you support having ''some'' references to slavery in the Bible in this article? Those are two contradictory positions. That is my problem and that is what I am asking you to explain. Put it another way: If you are going to have the facts about "Slavery in the Bible" in this article, then have ''all'' of the facts. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 20:26, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

*You don't understand that some of us are actually working, and I was in a meeting. Now, I am done. Your mistake is thinking there are contradictory positions, or that for purposes of this article, there needs to be. I submit there isn't a valid intellectual or moral argument in favor of slavery, therefore one doesn't need to present arguments from the Bible that might seem to endorse it, since all Biblical Scholars I have read have said it doesn't. Therefore biblical quotes that make it clear slavery isn't "right" can and should be included. Am I being clear enough?

::I didn't understand why your previous response didn't answer my question, not that you didn't respond. Basically the passages from the Bible has no place in here unless you put in ''all'' the passages from the Bible. But enough. I'm done arguing about this.[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 07:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*You just don't want to get the response is all. A closed mind isn't pretty. If one is free from having to present "another side", as there isn't a logical or moral argument in favor of slavery, then we don't have to present all quotes from the Bible, especially those that laymen misunderstand, and biblical scholars assure us don't mean what most think they do. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 08:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::It is not about the position vis a vis the morality or otherwise of slavery. That is most definitely not in question. It's a bigger problem, and what I've been driving at all along. If we don't need the Bible to help our argument against slavery (and i'm pretty sure we don't) then there is no place for "Slavery in the Bible" to be part of this article. '''But''' if you '''are''' going to have bible passages then you are duty bound to present '''all''' of the sources if this is going to be a complete, accurate section (which I still maintain has no place in this article). It's about academic rigour - you can't just cite things you like from a document and ignore things you don't. This is '''very much''' independent of the argument for or against slavery (as I've stated earlier, there is no argument), it's a matter of principle. "The whole Truth and nothing but the Truth" eh? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 14:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

*Oh, okay, I've got it. Only when using scripture must one apply academic rigor. And of course encyclopedias in the UK would include *ALL* passages, and never edit for length, lol. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 18:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop being facetious. When using '''any''' source we must apply rigour. Also, if you're going to misinterpret what I said as an attack and then attack in return, at least get your facts straight. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion==

I've certainly seen evidence that ancient slavery was qualitatively different from American slavery, not least because a) slaves could readily achieve manumission b) slavery was not racially specific c) slavery was accepted practice, and without controversy. However, the fact that the Bible addresses (and regulates) slavery is an example of God's wisdom and propriety, because He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity. Furthermore, confusing ancient slavery and the contemporary consensus on slavery is not accurate, and doesn't represent the Truth well. Finally, ancient slavery was much more like indentured servitude (which is not an inherently evil practice, and might be seen as similar to outsourcing or sweat shopping) and shouldn't be confused with the percieved excesses of Confederate American practice. [http://www.socialistworker.org/2002-2/431/431_08_Racism.shtml] For these reasons, I think the Biblical Record on this issue should be embraced. There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

"Perceived excesses of Confederate American practice"-This implies that the excesses were only perceived not real. Is that what you mean?

:: My read is that the Bible provides support for slavery, either in ancient or "modern" contexts. Whether or not that's a good thing, is a separate matter. [[User:JohnJones|JohnJones]] 09:14, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
*I think there is some confusion as to what Slavery was in the US South, then. The Slave Trade of the 1700's was racially specific only by the fact that the traders found a bountiful supply of people in Africa to take. It wasn't that they set out to capture only Black people, they were opportunists. Arguing who was "better" to their slaves isn't exactly admirable. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] spake thus: '''"There is no shame in God's Truth, only freedom."''' Unless, of course, one is a slave. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I am joking here. Paul readily identifies himself as Jesus' slave more than oncest. I believe there is no shame in that. Forgive me if my comment above made light of your observation or opinion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 19:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
*Even about dire subjects and times, it is good to keep a sense of humor (humour). :p --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 20:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:Completely. I actually thought DunsScotus was serious (albeit scary and serious) before I read that. That's totally cheered me up. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

*[[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] said "He forbids bad or evil slave-owner activity." That would imply that it's possible to have ''good'' slave-owner activity, a point which I would dispute most strenuously. If there's something more immoral than owning a human being, I haven't heard of it (and before anyone jumps in with examples of other kinds of heinous behavior, I submit that there are any number of ''equally'' immoral activities).
:[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:58, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't know whether or not slavery is inherently wrong, but I ''do'' know that there is no such thing as one sin being more wrong than another; it is either wrong or it isn't, wrong doesn't come in degrees. James 2: 10-11 says: ''"for whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 'Do not commit adultery', said also, 'Do not kill'. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

::Imagine it's the year 3000 B.C. .... now, to satisfy your morality, what would you propose in a social system to replace jails and prisons with, considering they didn't exist to handle common drunks and thieves in those days? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:01, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, I'm not an allegedly omnipotent and omniscient deity, so I don't feel too ashamed of not being able to whip up a solution off the top of my head. Besides, it's not like they didn't have other punishments available, from flogging to fines. The notion of one person owning another is inherently immoral, IMO.
:::Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible.
:::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 22:15, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
::::What I am saying is reference to your personal "morality" is a pretense, and doesn't add anything to this discussion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:20, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Why the quote marks around "morality?" What moral code does not abhor slavery?
::::::Well duh, this article states, "''Slavery is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible"'' [[Slavery#Slavery_in_the_Bible]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::That doesn't speak well of the Bible, does it?
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I wasn't referring to my "personal" morality, but to every moral code of which I'm aware. I know no Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or other believer (or atheist, for that matter) who considers slavery to be anything but immoral.
::::::Sure, since we all hold enlightened, rational views now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Whereas the Almighty doesn't? I'd think that the source of all morality would be expected to abhor slavery. If that's not so, then this raises several interesting ethical problems. Outside the scope of this article, of course, but serious problems nonetheless.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I thought this was ''Conserva''pedia: I didn't expect to find some kind of flexible ethics presented here. Perhaps I was wrong.
:::::I answered your question, incidentally: I notice you didn't answer mine.
:::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 08:24, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::I'm assuming your question is, ''"Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons, slavery becomes morally defensible."'' Let me answer a question with a question: Surely you're not saying that in the absence of prisons that thievery, drunkenness, prostition, and all petty crimes becomes morally defensible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:45, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::You're still ducking my question. Thievery and other crimes (I see no objective reason for either drunkenness ''per se'' or prostitution to be illegal) do not become morally defensible in the absence of prisons or other means of correction. However, that does not address my point. If you don't have any means of retribution besides slavery, then the solution is obviously to find other means, not to endorse slavery as morally acceptable.
:::::::I can see that this discussion is not going to be fruitful. Anyone who endorses slavery for any reason is clearly beyond any kind of appeal to ethics. I believe I'm done with this organization, which is too bad, because there's a certain amount of promise here.
:::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 10:45, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::The problem can be understood as a simple economic one; an individual, in the year 3000 B.C., who would qualify for what we call today "repeat offender" status, i.e. he/she has been caught countless times in dishonesty, that is to say, stealing, so that no one would trust the individual to hold a job. This "incorrigible" in question has an immediate problem, i.e. finding tonites dinner. Now, while petty thievery may not be a capital offense warranting death by stoning, nonetheless, watching the pitiful thief waste away and starve to death evoked certain innate feelings in onlookers. Thus slavery came about, in the absence of a taxpayer funded universal state Corrections System. To pretend this social system which evolved offends your sense of "morality" is ludicrous, unless you can present some alternative theory of a social system ancients should have pursued that would have provided tonites dinner to prodigals incapable of providing it for themselves.

::::::::As the first poster in this subhead pointed out, slavery did not come into existence as a system of racial oppression, although after being in existence for some time, and being common to all societies and cultures, it did evolve into such. Prisoners of War, for example, always ended up being slaves. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::So economics trumps morality?
:::::::::This is ridiculous. I can't believe I'm having to oppose slavery on "''Conserv''apedia." I'm cancelling my account, and you may sit and defend slavery to your heart's content without me.
:::::::::[[User:TheManInBlue|TheManInBlue]] 09:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::No one is "defending slavery"; we are seeking an accurate understanding of (a) what it is, and (b) how it came about. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't say that giving criminals forced labor is necessarily a bad thing. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 23:06, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

==West vs. Islam==

I daresay the Western world was more keen on abolishing slavery than the Arab or Islamic world. Nowhere in the Christian West is there any more slavery. The [[Sudan]] still has slavery. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:37, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Slavery was not abolished in Saudia Arbaia until 1962; a slave market 40 miles outside of Mecca was finally shut down. Many "pilgrims" to the Holy places ended up their when they didn't have the money for a round trip ticket and got busted shoplifting or whatnot to get enough money to return home. This seems to be a tradition that goes ''way'' back in Islam, and one reason [[Osama bin Laden]] cites for Western influence on Islamic traditions. The slave market was shut down, coincidcentally enough, at the same time Saudia Arabia gained independent status in the IMF & WTO to conduct its own affairs, rather than be the stepchild of the Great Britain or the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:51, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

== Therefore, all true Christians should support slavery as an institution. ==

This should be removed because it is offensive to many true Christians, and it truly makes this site look like a complete joke.[[User:Prof0705|Prof0705]] 13:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:It was, the troll indefinitely blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
=="Slave owners in the Southern states"==
I think we need a citation for the general statement, "Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

==Thank You, this article got me thinking==
This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.

I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.

Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.

Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:Let me present a theory: perhaps biblical references to slavery simply mirror the historical accuracy of the bible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:45, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::Yea, thats how I "reconciled" it with my liberal indoctrination too. The fact that I thought it had to be reconciled is a bit disturbing to me. I was obviosly led astray.
::Its clear from the passages that it explicitly lays out laws regarding slavery. If G-d wrote about it, it must be a pure and beneficient institution, and therefore should be reestablished. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 18:35, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::God wrote about incest and bestiality, too; does that mean incest and bestiality are pure and beneficient? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::::You know what I meant. G-d laid out laws to INSTITUTIONALIZE slavery. So as an institution it must be pure and beneficient. G-d specifically forbade both bestiality and incest. Yea, obviously because the bible talks about, say, unbelief, doesn't mean unbelief is acceptable. You must have known what I meant? Sorry, perhaps I should have been clearer. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 21:05, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I don't know that God institutionalized slavery, in fact, it appears God was a lone voice for slave-rights at the time. Master's thought they owned the man body and soul, God appointed specific time served remedies, and protections against things like putting out a slaves eye. God never mandated slavery, it was a man made solution for dealing with sin; God just prevented human rights excesses by the slave owners.

:::::In point of fact, strictly speaking, the Bible actually teaches that we all are slaves, either slaves of Christ or slaves of sin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:42, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

As I've just started to make a bit clearer in the article, biblical "slavery" and modern slavery are two quite different things. The Bible does "endorse" slavery at least to the extent of regulating it, but not in the sense of endorsing what is commonly understood as slavery now. And yet, it's a "liberal" (antibiblical) tactic to equate the two in order to discredit the Bible.

But more to the point, your view of God that he never has different requirements for different situations is unbiblical. God had Jonah go to Nineveh to tell them that they were doomed, but after they repented, He "changed his mind". That is, God's plan for the Ninevites was according to the particular circumstances, and when the circumstances changed, so did His plan.

Similarly, God required certain things of the Jews under the old covenant, and different things of Christians under the new covenant. We no longer offer sacrifices, for this reason, nor approach God via priests. Just because "slavery" was regulated and perhaps tacitly endorsed in Biblical times doesn't mean that we necessarily have to continue the practice today.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:Basically, slavery was a man-made invention to deal with debtors. A thief, when discovered, owed a debt to the victim. All sorts of other crimes likewise resulted in victims suffering losses to the perpetrators whom could be identified as debtors. There even arose a concept of the society as a whole being victimized by debtors (today, liberals debate so-called "victimless crimes", alleging for example marijuana use or prostitution harms no one, which is highly debatable). The debtors were in most instances incapable of repaying the debt, and barring a disincentive or deterant, were often repeat offenders. Thus the very basic notions of living in a civilized society came into play, i.e. (1) maintaining and protecting property rights, and (2) preventing criminals from gaining ascendency over persons who by habit were honest in dealing with their fellow human beings. If the debtor could not repay a debt, his person became the property of the creditor, who then was burdened with financing the slave-debtor's survival and maintainance until revenue produced by the debtor's labor could be sold to (a) repay the slaves maintaince, and (b) repay the old debt. This process could be short circuited by selling the slave himself to another financier (in much the same way bad debts are sold to collection agencies today at a discount), thus the slave trade came into existence. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:00, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with both of you. The sarcasm of the first entry is thinly veiled. It pretends that slavery is a creation of God and that its "good points" outweigh its bad points enough that we out to revive it. Actually, no one today agrees with this idea outside of a few Islamic people in Africa (see [[Sudan]]).

::Rob's point is closer to the truth. Some people were indeed sold into slavery because of their own debts - or maybe those of their parents. Some of the [[human trafficking]] in modern East Asia stems from this: girls in Thailand or South Korea have been sold as [[sex slave]]s even as late as the 1980s. But most slaves are victims of kidnappers, marauders and war victors. They didn't become slaves due to any "debt" but were simply captured.

::The main motive for slavery is to not to fulfill God's will or to reclaim a debt. Rather it is to get something for nothing. It's plain selfish. And selfishness, i.e., taking advantage of another person for your own benefit, is the definition of [[evil]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:20, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Ed. What I was referring to was how slavery as an institution came into existence several milleniums ago, as we all know, written sources corroborating what I've said are problematic. And yes, slavery was complicated when a child was born of the parents of one or two slaves, who couldn't work off the debt in their lifetime. This ideas was carried over into [[feudalism]], were originally a feudal lord could grant a person relief from the elements, a job, and sustanance, and at the time was a solution to the problems of unemployment of homelessnes; but eventually children were born into the system, and didn't regard the "lord" of the estate in the same way the orginal serf did, that is, as the guy who offered safety, protection, a job, and dinner until the fruits of his labor could be sold at market to pay for his debts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:33, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::So G-d figured since Man was going to do it anyway, might as well set out rules for it, but not necessarily condone it? So G-d's approach to slavery is basically the same as the liberal approach to pre-marital sex?

::Wonderful people, I thought this was supposed to be a conservative christian encyclopedia, where G-d's word is heeded and given the utmost respect. Apparently I was wrong. [[User:InTheEvent|InTheEvent]] 17:33, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:::It's not unlike divorce; God hate's divorce presumably as much as slavery, yet allowed it because of man's sinfullness, stubborness, and hard heartedness. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

== "[[Old Testament Era]]" ==

This phrase stood out to me as I was reading. What, may I inquire, is the "Old Testament Era"? To my knowledge, the Old Testament spans quite a stretch of history, so perhaps the phrase should be more specific. Unfortunately, I was at a loss with what to replace it. --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 11:02, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:It's a peculiarly Christian concept of history. Everything after Jesus was born is the New Testament Era; history stretching back from then to around the time Moses received the Law (and/or the Ten Commandments) is the Old Testament Era. Some theologians or historians might extend that back to the time of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - but it gets 'murky' back their.

:Anyway, it's obviously not a secular concept. Try [http://www.the-highway.com/law1_Wenham.html this reference]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:36, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Unfortunately, I'm familiar with Christianity's dealing with the Old Testament uses (since we're not Jewish). My point was that "Old Testament Era" is unnecessarily broad and doesn't really define itself clearly; the provided link certainly did nothing to answer my question. There's also the issue that the time line between the end of the Old Testament and the start of the New is not unbroken. Other historical events occur, thus making the term "Old Testament Era" vague and useless in this context. I think it should be more definite or perhaps more reliant on concrete dates, etc. Of course, there's also the issue that there is obviously slavery in both the "Old Testament Era", "The New Testament Era", and the "Post-Testaments Era". --[[User:Academichick|Academichick]] 17:20, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I've changed it to "Under the Mosaic Law...". Better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:48, 30 June 2007 (EDT)
== Islam ==
Islam is exactly a place name, i.e, it means "The Realm of Peace." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:46, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:Begging your pardon but Islam translates into English as "submission" (i.e. submission to God).--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 22:53, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::Islam is a contraction of "Dar al Salem" (Salem in Semitic languages means "peace") Dar al Salem is perpeturally at war with Dar al Harb, or the "Realm of Conflict,", i.e. those areas and persons who inhabit those areas outside Realm of Peace. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Begging your pardon again Rob, but you're incorrect. Please refer to http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Islam for the origin of the word.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 23:01, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

:That might be the origin of the word [written before edit conflicts with Porthos and RobS], but in normal everyday use, it is the name of a religion, not a physical Earthly location. I tried to make a similar change, but was beaten to it by Samwell. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:57, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Slavery

2007-08-20T02:53:11Z

Porthos:

Dr. Laura Schlessinger

2007-08-20T01:17:50Z

Porthos:

'''Dr. Laura Schlessinger''' is a radio talk host and author specializing in relationship issues. She holds a Ph.D. in [[physiology]] from [[Columbia University]].<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/lauraschlesinger.html</ref> A venture on TV was short lived when it was denounce by [[homosexual]] groups who were annoyed that Schlessinger would not treat their lifestyle as being equal with [[heterosexuality]].<ref>http://www.amazon.com/New-Thought-Police-Inside-Assault/dp/0761534040</ref> A conservative that strongly believes in [[family values]] and putting children first in relationships, she is heard by 8 million listeners daily, putting her fourth in radio ratings<ref>Newsweek, April 23, 2007 issue, Pg. 29</ref>

Very vocal in her ties to [[Orthodox Judaism]] and yet backed strongly by [[Christians]], she was even given the [[National Religious Broadcasters]] yearly award, the first non-Christian to receive it. In recent years Schlessinger has cut her ties to Orthodox Judaism. She is still widely embraced in conservative circles.

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Schlessinger, Laura}}

[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Authors]]

Washington Monument

2007-08-20T00:01:09Z

Porthos:

[[Image:DcWashingtonMor1.JPG|thumb|250px|A view of the Washington Monument from the World War Two Memorial]]

The '''Washington Monument''' is an [[obelisk]] that stands 555 feet tall in [[Washington, D.C.]] dedicated to [[George Washington]]. Engraved on its metal cap is the [[Latin]] phrase "Laus Deo," meaning "Praise be to [[God]]." When It was completed it was the world's tallest structure until the [[Eiffel Tower]] was finished in 1889.

The chief architect, [[Robert Mills]], was the first Federal Architect of the United States. Not surprisingly he was also a [[Freemason]], as was George Washington himself. The obelisk design of the Monument and some of the ceremonies involved with its official dedication are traditional Freemason trademarks.

[[Category:Buildings]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Washington Monument

2007-08-20T00:00:40Z

Porthos:

[[Image:DcWashingtonMor1.JPG|thumb|250px|A view of the Washington Monument from the World War Two Memorial]]

The '''Washington Monument''' is an [[obelisk]] that stands 555 feet tall in [[Washington, D.C.]] dedicated to [[George Washington]]. Engraved on its metal cap is the [[Latin]] phrase "Laus Deo," meaning "Praise be to [[God]]." When It was completed it was the world's tallest structure until the [[Eiffel Tower]] was finished in 1889.

The chief architect, Robert Mills, was the first Federal Architect of the United States. Not surprisingly he was also a [Freemason], as was George Washington himself. The obelisk design of the Monument and some of the ceremonies involved with its official dedication are traditional Freemason trademarks.

[[Category:Buildings]]
[[Category:Tourist Attractions]]

Slavery

2007-08-19T23:43:35Z

Porthos:

'''Slavery''' is the act or institution of holding one or more persons in a state of involuntary servitude to another person or persons, such that the person(s) held in bondage is/are considered to be property. It reduces a person to the status of [[chattel]] who can be owned by another person. The value of a slave was typically about the same as that of a [[race horse]], although Biblical injunctions existed granting certain rights and prohibitions, such as the right of the slave to go free after a certain amount of time or the prohibition against the master of putting a slave's eye out{{fact}}. The master controls and commands the slave, either through property-like ownership of the slave or by right to command him.

Slavery is best known to Americans as a peculiar institution of the Southern states before the US Civil War, although it is found in some  [[civilization]]s. Slavery still exists today in many parts of the world including China, Africa and some Latin American countries. In particular, even today, people are enslaved in the [[Sudan]].
Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5, “slaves, obey your masters” in arguments for the Christian endorsement of slavery. Another Bible verse states that thieves should be sold into slavery.<ref>Exodus 22:3 "He should make a full restitution; and if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.</ref> Under the [[Mosaic Law]], slaves could be kept for six years. <ref>Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."</ref> (See [[#"Slavery"_in_the_Bible|"Slavery" in the Bible]], below.)

The slavery system diminished a person to the point where they would be regarded as a thing or an object to be owned. Christian [[abolitionists]] disagreed with this valuation, and advanced an interpretation of the Bible which presented human value in terms of God's parental love for all people as His children (see [[human rights]]).

== Ancient History ==
[[Image:Ruslavery.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Painting of a slave market in early medieval Eastern Europe.]]
Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves. The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states.

Often prisoners of wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves; however, later Christian nations like Spain, England, and the Netherlands would continue in the use of slaves. Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]] into the twentieth century.

==Recent History==

In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of [[sugar]]—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the Netherlands and Great Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white plantation owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

Between 1530 and 1780, Europeans including Britons and even some Americans were frequently taken captive and enslaved by privateers from the [[Barbary States]]. Estimates of so-called "white slavery" vary from as little as 50,000 to in the millions <ref>http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm</ref>. Generally Europeans enslaved by the [[corsairs]] were usually poorer sea merchants and city dwellers whose families were unable to pay the ransom necessary to free them. Often the [[Pasha]] would purchase the female captives into his harem. Many were forced to "go turk" or convert to "mohammadism" in order to stay with their children who were raised as Muslims. Occasionally slaves would convert in order to escape harsher labors such as tending the oars in the corsairs <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_print.html</ref>.

==End of European and American Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when abolitionists such as [[William Wilberforce]] and [[John Wesley]] began speaking out against the evils of the system. Wilberforce was supported in his efforts by [[John Newton]], a slave trader who became a Christian and then opposed the slave trade. The slave trade was abolished in the [[British Empire]] in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

The British ban on the slave trade enforced by the British navy did undermine the slave trade globally. This led to the United States banning the slave trade in the early 1800s. However, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the U.S. government passed the [[13th Amendment]], after the secessionist Confederacy sought to defend its right to retain slaves and failed, and in [[South America]] when it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

=="Slavery" in the Bible ==
[[Image:Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe The Slave Market.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe's painting ''The Slave Market'']]
"Slavery" is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible. The Hebrew word ''ebed'' is translated as "slave" or "servant", but the concept is not the same as the modern understanding of "slave". It included "persons in subordinate positions"<ref name="ctt">[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html Does God condone slavery in the Bible?] (Christian ThinkTank)</ref> Therefore "all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called '''slaves''' of their '''kings'''".<ref name="ctt" />

Additionally, the Bible teaches that all property belongs to God, with mankind responsible for looking after it for God.

Some biblical passages mentioning slavery are:

* "A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt. A daughter sold into slavery is not released at the end of six years as is an ordinary male slave." -- Exodus 21:7-11

* "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." -- Genesis 17:12-13, showing that slaves were considered subject to the Old Covenant.

* "A slave owner is to be punished if he strikes his slave and the slave dies shortly thereafter. If the slave lives a day or to and then dies, the slave owner is not to be punished. A slave is the same as money to his owner." -- Exodus 21:20-21

* "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." -- Exodus 21:2-6. Hebrews may be slaves for a maximum of seven years, then must be freed. Any children produced during the period of slavery shall however remain the property of his owner.

* "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." -- Leviticus 25:44-46 (Leviticus 25 contains more detailed rules regarding who may or may not be enslaved)

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corinthians 7:20-21

* "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." -- 1 Peter 2:18

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16)

The Old Testament alone, prior to New Testament considerations, broadly prohibits the permanent enslavement of the native inhabitants of Israel but permits the enslavement of immigrants and the occupants of other countries. Depending on the precise circumstances, ethnicity, nationality and any enslaved relatives of a slave, some must be freed after a specified time, while others remain slaves for life. Though physical violence to slaves is permitted, murder is not.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/78.php Islam and Slavery:The Concealed Truth], Excerpts from a Lecture by Srdja Trifkovic, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, November 14, 2003.

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

Talk:Heterosexuality

2007-08-19T15:02:27Z

Porthos:

==empty sections==
What's the point of all the empty section headings? I'm not sure whether to ask why they are there, or why they are not complete (e.g. there are not sections for "heterosexuality and the common cold" or "Heterosexuality and inanimate objects"). --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 04:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
: Bit weird isn't it? Is it a spoof?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think the intention is to end up with an article as informative and well balanced as the one on [[homosexuality]].
::[[User:JC|JC]] did say "Content needs to be added. Its kinda science stuff I can't do it.". Unfortunately I don't know any better either.
::One can only assume content will be forthcoming.
:::"Be strong and of good courage, and do it: fear not, nor be dismayed: for the LORD God, even my God, will be with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake thee, until thou hast finished all the work for the service of the house of the LORD." (1 Chronicles 28:20)
::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Why? ==

Why were my good faith edits reverted without discussing them first? [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 16:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

You're not going to convince me it was good faith. The Bible does NOT say that sex within marriage is bad. 1 Corinthians 7:5 [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:Not sinful, no, but it does say it's better to remain single and celibate, and that marriage is only for people who would otherwise be tempted to commit fornication (1 Corinthias 7:8-9). [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 16:26, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::If celibacy is the prefered thing, wouldn't we pretty quickly go extinct? Don't you think god would like us to keep on having babies?! [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:38, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't pretend to know the mind of God. But I do know that Jesus was unmarried and celibate, and that Christians are called upon to be as like Jesus as they can. It's always worth striving for perfection, even though we know we will never achieve it. There will always be enough people who cannot resist temptation and therefore get married, so there's no risk of humans becoming extinct. But that doesn't mean that Christians who are unmarried (especially Christian children and teenagers who we are hoping will be the target audience of this site) should be looking forward to marriage. Rather, they should learn that celibacy is the ideal that they should strive for, and only if they can't resist sexual temptation should they consider marriage as a last resort. [[User:AppliedFaith|AppliedFaith]] 16:49, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Saying ''why did you do that to me'' is not much of a rationale for your actions or intentions. The burden of proof here is the same as at Wikipedia, and you have to leave the article alone unless you can prove to your peers that your change is worthwhile. Changing it back merely because they haven't convinced you that you are wrong just heads us toward an [[edit war]].

To use your own logic, I could simply edit your name out of the list of approved contributurs simply because you can't convince me to keep you around. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Activity?==
The definition of heterosexuality has been changed from "sexual attraction" to "sexual activity." Some interesting results emerge from this new concept:
#I am evidently not a heterosexual. Not tonight, anyway.
#In fact, anyone not actively engaged in sexual activity seems to lose heterosexuality as a trait.
#One may change from heterosexual to homosexual to bisexual to asexual, being whichever -sexual one prefers on any given night.
#No virgin may claim to have ever been a heterosexual, since the quality is dependent upon the activity. Heterosexuality springs into existence upon the initiation of sexual activity.
Needless to say, I find this particular definition wanting.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 00:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

: The article doesn't actually define "heterosexual". You may find those results interesting, but other definitions have more confusing results. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:20, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::"sexual activity" could include kissing etc, but probably doesn't include sitting on the other side of the classroom ''watching'' the girl of his dreams/boy of her dreams. I'm on the "orientation" side of the orientation/activity fence. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't be lured into this debate. It's a typical tactic of homosexuality advocates to quibble about such definitions. What they want to imply is that it's okay to "be homosexual" ''even in terms of Christian values'' as long as they don't violate church rules on behavior.

:::Jesus covered that with his "look of lust" rule in Matthew 5:27-28 which says:
*27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
*28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

:::When I have time, I'll explain more about why [[homosexuality]] is a sin - both as a desire ([[sinful desire]] and as an act ([[sinful act]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:37, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

::::We need to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual activity. A heterosexual person is a person who is attracted to a member of the other gender *regardless* of whether that person has ever actually had sex. A heterosexual virgin is *still* heterosexual. The same is true in reverse. A homosexual person is homosexual even if that person never in his entire life has sex with a member of the same gender. If a homosexual has sex with a person of the opposite sex, or vice versa he is *still* a homosexual, he has simply engaged in heterosexual activity.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

==Heterosexuality is not "the" natural sexual attration - it is a natural sexual orientation==
I changed that. I'd change your crap article on homosexuality but you locked it so nobody could put real neutral facts in there. [[User:GayMan|GayMan]] 17:12, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? What's a neutral fact, when it comes to religious values? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:31, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Skewed Statistics and Biased Views ==

Ummm...I'm just wondering why there are no statistics about STD's and mental disorders listed under this topic. It seems like all the negatives that are associated with homosexuals were posted on the Homosexual article, but I don't see anything saying that heterosexuals have mental disorders and sexually transmitted diseases and the statistics showing their promiscuity. I mean...I understand that this is CONSERVApedia....but I don't think many article writers take into account the non-Christian, non-white, non-heterosexual community that consider themselves "conservative."

==Meaning of Heterosexuality==

The first sentence describes heterosexuality as the means by which humans and animals reproduce. That's not technically true. Heterosexual sex is the means by which reproduction occurs. Being heterosexual but not having sex will not produce offspring.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 11:02, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Liberty Bell

2007-08-19T01:27:43Z

Porthos:

The '''Liberty Bell''' was designed as the bell for the Pennsylvania State House in 1751. It was rung for many events, including the coronation of King George III in 1760.<ref>http://www.nps.gov/history/nR/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/36liberty/36setting.htm</ref> Among its most famous ringings was on July 8 1776 to announce the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence.<ref>http://www.nps.gov/archive/inde/liberty-bell.html</ref>

The first bell was made in [[England]]. It arrived in Philadelphia in 1752 and cracked upon its first test ringing. A second bell was cast but its tone was found to be unsatisfactory. A third bell was cast, hung in the Pennsylvania State House (now Liberty Hall) in 1753. It weighs over 2000 pounds and its composition is 70% copper, 25% tin, and small amounts of lead, zinc, arsenic, gold, and silver. <ref>http://www.nps.gov/archive/inde/liberty-bell.html</ref> It was rung on every anniversary of Independance day (4th of July) until the time it cracked when rung on July 8, 1835 at the funeral of [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[John Marshall]].

Inscribed on the Liberty Bell is a verse from the [[Old Testament]]: <ref>Leviticus 25:10</ref>

:"Proclaim Liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Leviticus 25:10)

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

[http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-07-08&view=View American Minute]

[[category:United States History]]

Liberty Bell

2007-08-19T01:21:45Z

Porthos:

The '''Liberty Bell''' was designed as the bell for the Pennsylvania State House in 1751. The first bell arrived in Philadelphia in 1752 and cracked upon its first test ringing. A second bell was cast but its tone was found to be unsatisfactory. A third bell was cast, hung in the Pennsylvania State House (now Liberty Hall) in 1753. It was rung for many events, including the coronation of King George III in 1760.<ref>http://www.nps.gov/history/nR/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/36liberty/36setting.htm</ref> Among its most famous ringings was on July 8 1776 to announce the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence.<ref>http://www.nps.gov/archive/inde/liberty-bell.html</ref>

This bell was made in [[England]] and weighed over 2000 pounds and it's composition is 70% copper, 25% tin, and small amounts of lead, zinc, arsenic, gold, and silver. <ref>http://www.nps.gov/archive/inde/liberty-bell.html</ref> It was rung on every anniversary of Independance day (4th of July) until the time it cracked when rung on July 8, 1835 at the funeral of [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[John Marshall]].

Inscribed on the Liberty Bell is a verse from the [[Old Testament]]: <ref>Leviticus 25:10</ref>

:"Proclaim Liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." (Leviticus 25:10)

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

[http://www.amerisearch.net/index.php?date=2004-07-08&view=View American Minute]

[[category:United States History]]

Talk:Liberty Bell

2007-08-19T01:02:32Z

Porthos: New page: The liberty bell was not first rung to read the Declaration of Independence in 1776. That is its most famous ringing, but it arrived in Pennsylvania in 1752. Did it just sit there not be...

The liberty bell was not first rung to read the Declaration of Independence in 1776. That is its most famous ringing, but it arrived in Pennsylvania in 1752. Did it just sit there not being used for 24 years? I've seen the thing in person. The little historical museum you walk through before you see the bell itself goes through its history, pointing out that it was rung in 1760 to announce the coronation of King George III. I'm going to correct this article.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 21:02, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Officer

2007-08-17T20:20:30Z

Porthos: New page: An officer is a person who holds a particular office, or position of responsibility within a given organization. ==Organizations== Organizations are typically run using some form of parl...

An officer is a person who holds a particular office, or position of responsibility within a given organization.

==Organizations==

Organizations are typically run using some form of parliamentary/committee system, where members are appointed to serve on committees with responsibility over a particular area of concern for the organization. For example, a social organization may have a Fundraising Committee, a Planning Committee, et cetera. The officers of the organization are typically elected by the members and serve to coordinate the efforts of the various committees as well as provide leadership for the organization as a whole. A common officer structure consists of a President, one or more Vice Presidents, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and other officers as the organizational needs may require.

==Government==

In government, the term 'officer' is used for a variety of positions. Technically any elected or appointed position in a local, state, or national government can be considered an officer. This is in contrast to civil service positions which are merit-based and not usually considered to be officers, such as GS-level employees of the Federal Government or workers in a state Department of Motor Vehicles. Police and Fire officers are appointed by state and local governments, usually after completing some form of training academy.

==Military==

In a military system, there are three designations of officer, all denoting positions of responsibility.

*Commissioned Officer - a commissioned officer is appointed to his or her position by the leadership of his or her nation. In the U.S., officers are appointed by the President of the United States. In the United Kingdom, officers are appointed by the authority of the Queen (King). Commissioned officers are the leaders of a military and are trained in areas of leadership, management, as well as their particular military occupation. Commissioned Officers in the U.S. usually earn their commissions by attending one of the service academies, attending ROTC at a non-military university, or persons who already have a college degree may attend Officer Candidate School and earn a Direct Commission. Technically, the President of the United States has the authority to appoint any person he or she chooses to any officer position in the U.S. military. The same is true of the British Monarch for the British military. Commissioned officers must be rendered a salute by junior ranking officers, warrant officer, non-commissioned officers, and enlisted personnel, as well as being addressed as "Sir" or "Ma'am". An interesting distinction is that officers of the U.S. military swear their oaths of office to the U.S. Constitution whereas officers in the British military swear their oaths of office directly to the reigning monarch. American officers never swear allegiance to a particular head of state. The President of the United States, while constitutionally designated as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, is by tradition and statute considered to be a civilian and not a commissioned officer.

*Warrant Officer - In the U.S. military, Warrant Officers start as senior enlisted personnel who earn an expertise in a particular field (helicopter pilots and information technology experts being the most common). They are appointed to Warrant Officer status, which is senior to all enlisted personnel but junior to all commissioned officers. They are saluted by junior personnel and titled "Sir" or "Ma'am" by junior personnel just as commissioned officers are.

*Non-commissioned Officer - A non-commissioned officer (NCO) in the U.S. military is an enlisted person between the grades of E-5 through E-9 (Sergeant through Command Sergeant Major in the Army). They are leaders with a greater focus on occupation specialty than commissioned officers, and serve as advisors to senior military leadership. In particular, the Command Sergeant Major of the Army, the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, the Command Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, and the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy have the unique position of being the senior spokesperson for enlisted persons in their particular branch of the military.

Suicide

2007-08-17T19:37:08Z

Porthos: Suicide in the Army

'''Suicide''' is the act of killing of oneself. This is a [[sin]] in the [[Christian]] religion (and a mortal sin in [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholic]] tradition), as well as a very grave sin within [[Islam]]. However, in other societies suicide can be considered to be a duty, honor, or necessity. Among the Inuit tribes some elderly individuals who believe that they have become a burden on their families may paddle into the Arctic Ocean to end their lives. Similarly, various Polynesian tribes will do the same.{{fact}} The theme of suicide can be seen in literature from many cultures. Some of the best known examples are found in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

==Scope of the Problem==

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the world, claiming over one million lives globally in 1999. The suicide rate in the U.S. in 1999 was 10.7 per 100,000; the homicide rate that same year was only 6.2 per 100,000. Suicide is the third leading cause of death in youth 15–24 years old. White males over 85 have the highest rate of suicide, about 65 per 100,000. Suicide rates are also elevated in some ethnic groups. For example, suicide is about 1.5 times more prevalent than average among Native Americans. While whites continue to have higher suicide rates than blacks, the gap seems to be narrowing in young males. Suicides in males outnumber those in females in almost all nations, including the United States. While males are more likely to complete suicide, females are more likely to attempt suicide.<ref>Institute of Medicine. (2002). Reducing Suicide: A National Imperative. Page 33. National Academies Press, Washington.</ref>

==Suicide in the Military==

The U.S. Army reported 99 suicides in 2006, with almost half of those being soldiers/officers under 25. According to Colonel Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry consultant to Army Surgeon General Major General Gale Pollock, the primary motivation for these suicides was "failed intimate relationships, failed marriages."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html?sub=AR</ref>
This represents the highest level of suicide in the Army in 26 years.

{{stub}}

==References==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[kamikaze]]
*[[suicide bomber]]

[[category:culture]]

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-08-14T17:56:02Z

Porthos:

I noticed on the main page the news item about adult stem cells and the byline indicating how (in the opinion of the author(s)) the "abortion" industry ''"continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States"'' and it continues to say how ''"In the case of a recently successful adult stem cell project for diabetics, "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach."'' Nonsense. I am not a researcher in that area, but know enough to understand that scientists go where the data leads them. If adult stem cells will work like other stem cells, people will try them and such efforts continue. It is utter nonsense to say that doctors in the US are not interested in that approach - perhaps they know a few things the author(s) do not know.

: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?

^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think. I care about whether or not stem cells have value. Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research.
[[User:Cthx]]

:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]]
:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]
Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]
: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research. It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand. While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs. Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding. Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather. Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on. We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies. I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies. I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings. [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
- [[User:JCasto]]
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human. Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life. Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization? Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away. Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research? JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
::"Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life" How can you say something like that? To me that is sicker than any story of the Holocaust or the Gulags. A fertilized egg under normal conditions becomes more cells, and even more cells. It is simple science. What do you think you are? You are a group of cells with just a few more years progress. Just because you may die in a car crash tommorow doesn't mean I'll shoot you now and harvest your body parts for someone in need of a heart or a lung. How do you justify that your life is more important than someone elses? God created all human beings with worth and dignity from the moment of conception. Also just because, "Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away" doesn't make anything right. Have you never heard that two wrongs don't make a right? These are HUMAN BEINGS that we are talking about. It is not our right or privelage to make the decision of life or death for them. Isn't that what a murderer is, someone who decides that another human is not deserving of life? --[[User:CRD|CRD]] 21:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Stem cell research is bad. Embryos are living beings.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe that abortion is wrong, as it is the taking of a human life. However, using discarded embryos and aborted fetuses for stem cell research is not the same as condoning abortion. If the embryo or fetus is no longer alive, harvesting its stem cells is extremely similar to using the organs of a deceased person to save a living one, or using a cadaver for scientific research. --[[User:ac09]]

Are embryos definitely living things? I think it depends on where you define life begins e.g. conception or after-birth.

Let me use the environment as an analogy. We're all agreed that both humans and trees are living things. Humans come from embryos just as much as tree originiate from seeds. How many of you would classify a seed as the same sort of living thing that an embryo is?

Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]]

YES for stem cells. Allow me to explain:

*You are a killer. By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp. By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants). By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash. And you are shameless about it. Jesus condones killing. His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered ''en masse'' to make bread. Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected. Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important. After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life.
*Why is human life so valuable? Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable. Why? One could say that human life is valuable because it is human. That, however, is an arbitrary distinction. The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties. Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have. Here are a few:
::::The ability to feel pain
::::The ability to think
::::The ability to have emotions
Embryos, however, have none of the above properties. Therefore, they do not have the value of a human.

*But what about God? God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary. Besides, how do you ''know'' that God does value them? After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him. And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above.

*But don't embryos have potential? Why stop at embryos? Why even stop at conception? By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder. ''Potential'' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target.

*But it's ''just not right''?! If you have any other objections, please post.

*Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative. To research stem cells.

Q.E.D.
[[User:Cthx]]

: "By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder" There is no potential that a woman will get pregnant walking down the street. A human being is concieved through sexual interaction (Bio 101) and becomes and embryo and thus an infant and then an adolescant, etc. That is the normal path of human development. There is no "potential" involved. Uninhibited by natural or artificial means that embreyo becomes an adult like you and me. Just because it is not at that stage yet does not mean it does not have the same value as a human life. In a casualty report, do you count the children as half a person because they are not yet quite as developed as you are? That is the same ignorant line of thought that has been fought for years under the cover of racism. People were saying that because you do not look like me, I have the right to kill and test on you like a lab rat (yes, test, think Hitler). There is no "low-value embryo", you were at one point an embreyo, if someone had decided for you that your life was not important (because I can throw you in a freezer and use you for science) then you would not even be here today breathing with a set of lungs or thinking with that brain that came from those first egg and sperm. If you are a God fearing man (I make no assumption), do you believe that you are not given the grace of God and the right to Heaven until you are fully capable of grasping and believing your faith? If so, half the world would be out of luck! Our God is a loving and unconditional God and he loves us from the moment of conception, where from that point he will guide our lives in the direction he intends it to go. Either through science or religion (I believe them to be one in the same because God created it all) an embreyo MUST be considered to be a human being, otherwise you are making the grave mistake of denying the life of another human being, which is known as murder.--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 23:11, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Fairly recently it was discovered that stem cells could be obtained from umbilical cords, pleasing both sides of this debate, I would assume. Does anyone object to this? [[User:HKK]]

:No, I want to deliberately kill babies. Seriously? If umbilical cord cells are easiest to obtain/highest quality, then YES I support umbilical cord cells over embryonic. If, however, they are of inferior quality (i.e. can't be made to specialize) or are too hard to get (i.e. they're needles in haystacks), then embryonic cells are better. [[User:Cthx]]

From what I've gatherd stem cells from cord blood are still a new idea but they show enormous potential. Scientists have also found a way to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. I also support research of embryonic stem cells (especialy when there are so many to be gained through things like invitro fertilization that would have otherwise been disposed of), however in light of recent scienific breakthroughs this debate is becoming much less neccessary, as there are now multiple ways to satisfy both sides.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]

Great! [[User:Cthx]]

==Rational Use==

I'm not so keen on creating an embryo specifically for the purposes of destroying it in order to harvest the stem cells. It just seems to be in poor taste, to be honest. I see nothing wrong, however, with parents donating unused embryos for research, or with fertility clinics donating abandoned embryos.

Many embryos have been "abandoned" by their parents. That is to say, the treatment the embryos were created for succeeded in producing a pregnancy. Fertility treatments usually require the production of several embryos, only some of which will be implanted (they sometimes keep a few left over in case they need to try a second time). When embryos are left over, the parents have 4 options: discard them, donate them to other couples, pay several hundred dollars per year to keep them in storage, or donate them for medical research. However, often the parents will start by paying for storage and then disappear; the payments stop and the embryos are abandoned. This accounts for approximately 10% of the embryos currently in storage.

Most fertility clinics, and their owners, are uncertain about the ethical and legal ambiguities involved with abandoned embryo retention/destruction, so they will take on the burden of financing the continued storage themselves.

Consider these points:
*1) Whenever an in vitro fertilization procedure takes place, several embryos are created, only one (or two or mmmaybe three) of which will ever produce a fetus. So, any time these treatments take place, several embryos are created for the purpose of eventually being destroyed. There's no way around this.
*2) No one in this thread, that I have seen at least, has argued that the in vitro fertilization procedure itself is unethical, therefore there is clearly some level of acceptance of the fact that embryos will be created for the purpose of being destroyed. (Now, if you want to argue that IVF itself is an unethical procedure, that's another story.)
*3) An embryo that is destroyed has served no useful function. It has not produced a fetus, it has not furthered the cause of humanity; it was essentially created and destroyed in vain.
*4) Plenty of embryos are already being donated for the purposes of stem cell research. It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. (The one restriction is that Federal Government funds can not be used to support it.)
*5) An embryo donated for research has served some purpose. Its existence was not in vain and it stands the chance of possibly contributing to major medical breakthroughs.

Those points being made, I fail to see why abandoned embryos should not be donated. Their parents gave up their right to decide the embryos' fates and essentially left it up to the clinics. I would argue that the fate of an abandoned embryo falls to the owner(s) of the clinic they are stored at, and any of the 4 options I listed above (destruction, adoption, continued storage, research donation) should be available to the clinic the same as it would be to the parents.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 10:35, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Stem Cells

2007-08-14T14:35:15Z

Porthos:

I noticed on the main page the news item about adult stem cells and the byline indicating how (in the opinion of the author(s)) the "abortion" industry ''"continues to insist on unsuccessful embryonic stem cell research in the United States"'' and it continues to say how ''"In the case of a recently successful adult stem cell project for diabetics, "the research was done in Brazil because U.S. doctors were not interested in the approach."'' Nonsense. I am not a researcher in that area, but know enough to understand that scientists go where the data leads them. If adult stem cells will work like other stem cells, people will try them and such efforts continue. It is utter nonsense to say that doctors in the US are not interested in that approach - perhaps they know a few things the author(s) do not know.

: It amazes me how much the media sings the tune for embryonic stem cells when zero has been accomplished. Probally has to do more with the Bush bashers (his veto), than any logical reason for promoting a big big maybe. John Kerry claims embryonic stem cells saved a little old mouse. Is that not the most pathetic augument ever--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)?

^ I don't care what the media or John Kerry think. I care about whether or not stem cells have value. Read my post and you '''will''' see, as you say, "logical" reasons for stem cell research.
[[User:Cthx]]

:: Research in medicine is slow and the medications and treatments we enjoy today are the result of years of painstaking efforts by people all around the world. When we examine history, we realize that there was horror at scientists/medical doctors interested in dissection of cadavers, experimentation on animals - certain religious groups do not believe anything other than their faith can cure all illl - and oppose all modern medical interventions. There is slow progress being made on understanding how stem cells (adult and embryonic) can be programmed/taught to develop along particular lines for transplantation/therapy/ and yes, initial progress is usually demonstrated in small animals, particular mice. So, NO, it is NOT a pathetic argument whatsoever, it indicates we are making progress. [[User:Seekcommon]]
:::I heard ''PETA'' is one of the biggest organizations against animal testing.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT):::: Yes, I have heard report of their atrocities also. To many who belong to PETA/ human life is far less (or not important) than any/all animal life - they would take human life to protect animals, what I understand. Despicable for sure. [[User:Seekcommon]]
Stem cell research is a vital part of a growing scientific and medic commune that hopes to eraticate such diseases as Alzheimers. The unfortunate thing is that FETAL stem cells are incapable of providing such results. However, ADULT stem cells have already cured 60 some odd diseases and cured parallysis in several test subjects. The thought of farming children like livestock is barbaric. To really just grow children for spare parts is inhumane. Besides, trials involving FETAL stem cells have had side effects similar to being jolted with lightning include spaztic convulsions that does not dissipate. Its harmful to both the humans who were involved in clinical trials and the humans they were harvested from. My responce does not come as a Republican, or a Bushie, but as a concerned citizen of Earth who feels more can be accomplished whithout sacrificing the next generation. P.S. Aztecs sacrificed children and we called them barbaric. [[User; Dfairlyxed13|Dairlyxed13]]
: It IS barbaric to "grow" children for spare parts, that is not the intention, as fas as I know, of the people who pursue embryonic stem cell research. It is not true that ALL stem cells are equivalent, from what I understand. While attempts are being made to reprogram stem cells from any source, the current state of the art/science seems to be that only embryonic stem cells seem capable of differentiating into any tissue/organs. Again, from what I understand, the clamor is to be able to use cells which were going to be destroyed - or use cells that were discarded naturally - e.g. when there is a miscarriage ... again, my limited understanding. Nature/God is far more "cruel" if you can say that when it comes to terminating pregnancies - it happens at far higher rates than deliberately induced abortions, again, what I gather. Humans are always pushing the envelope - we are always seeking means to improve and yes, protect lives - starting with drugs to kill bacteria/viruses, to deliberate surgical interventions to transplantation and so on. We should ALWAYS be careful in what we pursue, yet, where the lines we must NOT cross are not clear to all and hence the controversies. I do not for a minute believe that the right to choose people are simply waiting to kill babies/unborns - OR that the right to life people are not sympathetic to the victim of rape or incest or unwanted pregnancies. I just wish that each side would understand what it is that they seek and work towards the common goal of reducing living, human suffering and not add to the sufferings. [[User:Seekcommon]]

I have nothing against stem cell research... non-embryonic stem cell research, that is. Stem cell research using non-embryonic sources (umbilical cord blood, placenta, bone marrow, and adult skin, blood, brain, and body fat cells) is ethically fine. No human lives are destroyed. If stem cells can be obtained from living humans without harming them, then why are embryonic stem cells so sought after. Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, meaning they can become almost any type of cell. Adult stem cells are multipotent, meaning they can only make cells from a closely related group of cells. For example, one type of stem cell could make RBC's, WBC's, platelets, etc., but not nervous tissue. For this reason, embryonic stem cells are more desirable. However, we must face the ethical realities. Is it right to take one person's life to save another's? Opinion changes from person to person, but I believe life begins at the moment of conception. There is no reason why that baby should be used for stem cell research. It is not ethically justifiable. However, I know that this will come up - what about aborted babies? Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people? My opinion - one wrong does not justify another. Just because a baby was aborted doesn't make it right to use it for stem cell research. Additionally, ponder this... if the government were to allow aborted babies to be used for stem cell research, the mothers might get paid... if they were paid, people would have many babies with someone on purpose so that they can destroy the life of an individual to make money. I would like to see everyon elses reaction to this, as well as the question, "Should we "waste" the babies that mothers do not want, or should we "harvest" their stem cells to help other people?" So quite simply, it is never morally or ethically justifiable to kill one human being to benefit another human being. Sooo... next topic, stem cells that have been discarded. Illegal. Why? Well, allowing discarded stem cells, as in stem cells from an aborted fetus, seems to condone abortion, because the cells are being used for a "good purpose." Basically, one wrong does not justify another. Just because the baby was already aborted does not make using the embryos for their stem cells fine. Because then you might have people willingly abort their babies knowing they will be used for science. Or even more disturbing - a mother "growing" babies that she aborts to use stem cells to heal the sickness of herself or others. Not something we want to support. Thus, by making using even discarded embryonic stem cells illegal, a line is being drawn. Under no circumstances are embryonic stem cells fine. Because when you make exceptions, more and more get made until possibly the thing itself becomes legal. I had thought the same thing you do once, but then realized that its morally wrong. One wrong does not justify another. About the jail time: if it was just a fine, rich doctors could easily continue to use the ESC's without getting hurt too bad. People who kill the life of a human to help another are criminal. Another example: euthanasiasts - they take the life of a patient to ease their suffering and make the lives of those suffering with them emotionally better.
WHY IS MURDER JUSTIFIABLE FOR SCIENCE?? IT SHOULD NOT BE SO!
- [[User:JCasto]]
: your argument obviously brings about the topic of what is defined as being human. Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life. Besides what about embryos that are stored by couples who have successfully undergone invitro fertilization? Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away. Why not use those embryos for stem-cell research? JCasto, are you willing to save the "life" of an embryo at the cost of prolonging of the suffering of millions of people? - [[User:comatose raccoon]]
::"Personally, a small clump of cells that has a large chance of not developing properly, is not what I view as a life" How can you say something like that? To me that is sicker than any story of the Holocaust or the Gulags. A fertilized egg under normal conditions becomes more cells, and even more cells. It is simple science. What do you think you are? You are a group of cells with just a few more years progress. Just because you may die in a car crash tommorow doesn't mean I'll shoot you now and harvest your body parts for someone in need of a heart or a lung. How do you justify that your life is more important than someone elses? God created all human beings with worth and dignity from the moment of conception. Also just because, "Those embryos will never be used and they will probably be thrown away" doesn't make anything right. Have you never heard that two wrongs don't make a right? These are HUMAN BEINGS that we are talking about. It is not our right or privelage to make the decision of life or death for them. Isn't that what a murderer is, someone who decides that another human is not deserving of life? --[[User:CRD|CRD]] 21:53, 11 July 2007 (EDT)
Stem cell research is bad. Embryos are living beings.--[[User:Edtropolis|Edtropolis]] 16:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe that abortion is wrong, as it is the taking of a human life. However, using discarded embryos and aborted fetuses for stem cell research is not the same as condoning abortion. If the embryo or fetus is no longer alive, harvesting its stem cells is extremely similar to using the organs of a deceased person to save a living one, or using a cadaver for scientific research. --[[User:ac09]]

Are embryos definitely living things? I think it depends on where you define life begins e.g. conception or after-birth.

Let me use the environment as an analogy. We're all agreed that both humans and trees are living things. Humans come from embryos just as much as tree originiate from seeds. How many of you would classify a seed as the same sort of living thing that an embryo is?

Seeds are allowed to be experimented on so why not embryos? Aren't trees the same "perfect work of God" that humans are? -- [[User:jamieallen]]

YES for stem cells. Allow me to explain:

*You are a killer. By scratching your head you are killing bacteria on your scalp. By eating, you are killing animals (or in the case of the vegetarian, plants). By walking on grass you are committing genocide due to the bugs that you squash. And you are shameless about it. Jesus condones killing. His father was a carpenter (tree-killer), his friends were fishermen, and the bread he ate during his Last Supper contains the grains of thousands of different wheat plants slaughtered ''en masse'' to make bread. Therefore, life does not necessarily need to be morally protected. Keep in mind that the word necessarily is important. After reading this, it would still seem that killing stem cells is wrong, due to them being '''human''' life.
*Why is human life so valuable? Generally, it is widely considered that human life is valuable. Why? One could say that human life is valuable because it is human. That, however, is an arbitrary distinction. The value of an object is derived, not from its name, but from its properties. Therefore, human life is valuable because of the properties that humans have. Here are a few:
::::The ability to feel pain
::::The ability to think
::::The ability to have emotions
Embryos, however, have none of the above properties. Therefore, they do not have the value of a human.

*But what about God? God assigning embryos as valuable because they are so doesn't prevent this from still being arbitrary. Besides, how do you ''know'' that God does value them? After all, it'd be hard to find out unless you've had a chat with him. And even then, I doubt that God would sanction stem cells due to the arguments posted above.

*But don't embryos have potential? Why stop at embryos? Why even stop at conception? By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder. ''Potential'' for value is everywhere, but that doesn't mean that the potential has the value of the target.

*But it's ''just not right''?! If you have any other objections, please post.

*Now, we can logically conclude that spending low-value embryos for high-value scientific knowledge (even if that knowledge isn't a cure to a disease, it still has more value than the non-sensing, non-sapient embryo: e.g. greater knowledge of human development) is not only morally right, but morally imperative. To research stem cells.

Q.E.D.
[[User:Cthx]]

: "By that same logic, having a period or failing to impregnate everyone near you would be tantamount to murder" There is no potential that a woman will get pregnant walking down the street. A human being is concieved through sexual interaction (Bio 101) and becomes and embryo and thus an infant and then an adolescant, etc. That is the normal path of human development. There is no "potential" involved. Uninhibited by natural or artificial means that embreyo becomes an adult like you and me. Just because it is not at that stage yet does not mean it does not have the same value as a human life. In a casualty report, do you count the children as half a person because they are not yet quite as developed as you are? That is the same ignorant line of thought that has been fought for years under the cover of racism. People were saying that because you do not look like me, I have the right to kill and test on you like a lab rat (yes, test, think Hitler). There is no "low-value embryo", you were at one point an embreyo, if someone had decided for you that your life was not important (because I can throw you in a freezer and use you for science) then you would not even be here today breathing with a set of lungs or thinking with that brain that came from those first egg and sperm. If you are a God fearing man (I make no assumption), do you believe that you are not given the grace of God and the right to Heaven until you are fully capable of grasping and believing your faith? If so, half the world would be out of luck! Our God is a loving and unconditional God and he loves us from the moment of conception, where from that point he will guide our lives in the direction he intends it to go. Either through science or religion (I believe them to be one in the same because God created it all) an embreyo MUST be considered to be a human being, otherwise you are making the grave mistake of denying the life of another human being, which is known as murder.--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 23:11, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Fairly recently it was discovered that stem cells could be obtained from umbilical cords, pleasing both sides of this debate, I would assume. Does anyone object to this? [[User:HKK]]

:No, I want to deliberately kill babies. Seriously? If umbilical cord cells are easiest to obtain/highest quality, then YES I support umbilical cord cells over embryonic. If, however, they are of inferior quality (i.e. can't be made to specialize) or are too hard to get (i.e. they're needles in haystacks), then embryonic cells are better. [[User:Cthx]]

From what I've gatherd stem cells from cord blood are still a new idea but they show enormous potential. Scientists have also found a way to extract stem cells from embryos without destroying the embryo. I also support research of embryonic stem cells (especialy when there are so many to be gained through things like invitro fertilization that would have otherwise been disposed of), however in light of recent scienific breakthroughs this debate is becoming much less neccessary, as there are now multiple ways to satisfy both sides.--[[User:HKK|HKK]]

Great! [[User:Cthx]]

I'm not so keen on creating an embryo specifically for the purposes of destroying it in order to harvest the stem cells. It just seems to be in poor taste, to be honest. I see nothing wrong, however, with parents donating unused embryos for research, or with fertility clinics donating abandoned embryos.

Many embryos have been "abandoned" by their parents. That is to say, the treatment the embryos were created for succeeded in producing a pregnancy. Fertility treatments usually require the production of several embryos, only some of which will be implanted (they sometimes keep a few left over in case they need to try a second time). When embryos are left over, the parents have 4 options: discard them, donate them to other couples, pay several hundred dollars per year to keep them in storage, or donate them for medical research. However, often the parents will start by paying for storage and then disappear; the payments stop and the embryos are abandoned. This accounts for approximately 10% of the embryos currently in storage.

Most fertility clinics, and their owners, are uncertain about the ethical and legal ambiguities involved with abandoned embryo retention/destruction, so they will take on the burden of financing the continued storage themselves.

Consider these points:
*1) Whenever an in vitro fertilization procedure takes place, several embryos are created, only one (or two or mmmaybe three) of which will ever produce a fetus. So, any time these treatments take place, several embryos are created for the purpose of eventually being destroyed. There's no way around this.
*2) No one in this thread, that I have seen at least, has argued that the in vitro fertilization procedure itself is unethical, therefore there is clearly some level of acceptance of the fact that embryos will be created for the purpose of being destroyed. (Now, if you want to argue that IVF itself is an unethical procedure, that's another story.)
*3) An embryo that is destroyed has served no useful function. It has not produced a fetus, it has not furthered the cause of humanity; it was essentially created and destroyed in vain.
*4) Plenty of embryos are already being donated for the purposes of stem cell research. It has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. (The one restriction is that Federal Government funds can not be used to support it.)
*5) An embryo donated for research has served some purpose. Its existence was not in vain and it stands the chance of possibly contributing to major medical breakthroughs.

Those points being made, I fail to see why abandoned embryos should not be donated. Their parents gave up their right to decide the embryos' fates and essentially left it up to the clinics. I would argue that the fate of an abandoned embryo falls to the owner(s) of the clinic they are stored at, and any of the 4 options I listed above (destruction, adoption, continued storage, research donation) should be available to the clinic the same as it would be to the parents.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 10:35, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Institute of Medicine

2007-08-14T03:19:22Z

Porthos: New page: The IOM should not be categorized as part of the United States Government. We *are* a government contractor, but we do not fall under the auspices of any part of the federal government. -...

The IOM should not be categorized as part of the United States Government. We *are* a government contractor, but we do not fall under the auspices of any part of the federal government. --[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 23:19, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Dollar (U.S.)

2007-08-01T13:06:49Z

Porthos:

The United States Dollar is the official currency of the United States. It is also widely used as a reserve currency outside of the United States.

Until 1974, the value of the United States dollar was fixed to a value of a fixed amount of a precious metal. Between the late 18th century and the late 19th century, the [[United States]] dollar was fixed to the value of either gold or silver in a system known as bimetallism. In the early 1970's, the [[trade deficit]] and [[inflation]] in the United States, caused a run on the gold reserves used to back the United States dollar. This forced the United States to delink the value of the dollar from a specific amount of gold. Currently, the issuance of currency is controlled by the Federal Reserve Banking system.

==The Symbol==
One theory states that the dollar symbol $ is a corruption of the monogram of the initials U.S., and is often used in a derogatory fashion. Ayn Rand once said that "Do you know that the United States is the only country in history that has ever used its own monogram as a symbol of depravity? Ask yourself why. Ask yourself how long a country that did that could hope to exist, and whose moral standards have destroyed it." This statement would not be true if we took it to mean that some US citizens used the monogram in a derogatory fashion, since that is, and has been, a common form of protest.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the most widely accepted origin for the dollar sign is that it evolved from P's, being used to represent Spanish or Mexican pesos, piastres, or "pieces of eight", which were common in the English colonies in North America. Over time the S was superimposed upon the P and this created a close approximation to the modern $.<ref>http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/113</ref>

==The Design==
What differs the US from other nations to allow that kind of statement is our strong national heritage in which an act by one citizen is taken to be one of the whole nation. This is the reason that the Roman fasces often appears on our currency.

==The Dollar Bill==
The Dollar Bill currently features George Washington.

==Sacagawea Dollars==

In 2000, the US Mint began to issue Sacagawea Dollars.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Currency]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:Dollar (U.S.)

2007-07-31T04:59:52Z

Porthos:

== Proposal for moving to United States Dollar ==

Other countries use the name "dollar" for their local monetary unit. This article should be moved to reflect its specific focus on the United States Dollar. --[[User:Draper|Draper]] 20:06, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
:Done (although not to the name you suggested) and thanks for the suggestion. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:58, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

==Citation is Wrong==
The citation used as a reference for the Masonic imagery on the dollar bill contains at least two flat-out inaccuracies (or lies, if the writer knew they were inaccurate). First, it claims that the Latin phrase "Annuit Coeptis" means "Announcing the Birth Of," which it does NOT. It means "He (God) has approved our undertaking."

Also, it states that "Novus Ordo Seclorum" means "New World Order". It does NOT. "New World Order" would be "Novus Ordo Mundi". "Novus Ordo Seclorum" means "New Order for the Ages"

I suggest that the source and the information it is used to reference be removed, unless a more accurate source can be found to provide said information.--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 09:32, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:After reading even more of that site, it is really nothing more than paranoid conspiracy-theorist nonsense. It really doesn't have a place as an encyclopedic source. --[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 09:55, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Having heard no objection to my judgment that the citation in question is faulty, I will delete the faulty citation and the information produced by said citation at noon tomorrow (31 July 2007) unless I am told otherwise by a sysop. Now is your time!--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 00:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dollar (U.S.)

2007-07-30T13:55:35Z

Porthos:

Talk:Dollar (U.S.)

2007-07-30T13:32:59Z

Porthos:

Dollar (U.S.)

2007-07-30T13:24:13Z

Porthos:

The United States Dollar is the official currency of the United States. It is also widely used as a reserve currency outside of the United States.

Until 1974, the value of the United States dollar was fixed to a value of a fixed amount of a precious metal. Between the late 18th century and the late 19th century, the [[United States]] dollar was fixed to the value of either gold or silver in a system known as bimetallism. In the early 1970's, the [[trade deficit]] and [[inflation]] in the United States, caused a run on the gold reserves used to back the United States dollar. This forced the United States to delink the value of the dollar from a specific amount of gold. Currently, the issuance of currency is controlled by the Federal Reserve Banking system.

==The Symbol==
One theory states that the dollar symbol $ is a corruption of the monogram of the initials U.S., and is often used in a derogatory fashion. Ayn Rand once said that "Do you know that the United States is the only country in history that has ever used its own monogram as a symbol of depravity? Ask yourself why. Ask yourself how long a country that did that could hope to exist, and whose moral standards have destroyed it." This statement would not be true if we took it to mean that some US citizens used the monogram in a derogatory fashion, since that is, and has been, a common form of protest.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the most widely accepted origin for the dollar sign is that it evolved from P's, being used to represent Spanish or Mexican pesos, piastres, or "pieces of eight", which were common in the English colonies in North America. Over time the S was superimposed upon the P and this created a close approximation to the modern $.<ref>http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/113</ref>

==The Design==
What differs the US from other nations to allow that kind of statement is our strong national heritage in which an act by one citizen is taken to be one of the whole nation. This is the reason that the Roman fasces often appears on our currency.

There are several symbols which appear on the dollar, and it is often said by the [[Federal Reserve]] that they are there to prevent counterfeiting. This may be true, but the symbols contain a great deal of [[Freemasonry|Masonic]] symbolism<ref>http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Federal%20Reserve%20Scam/satan_on_our_dollar.htm</ref>. Some modern Christians think this to be an innocuous link to the Masonic lifestyle of the [[Founding Fathers]].

==The Dollar Bill==
The Dollar Bill currently features George Washington.

==Sacagawea Dollars==

In 2000, the US Mint began to issue Sacagawea Dollars.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Currency]]
[[Category:Economics]]

Talk:The Star-Spangled Banner

2007-07-27T17:13:07Z

Porthos: New page: Citations and sources, please, people! Danke :-)--~~~~

Citations and sources, please, people! Danke :-)--[[User:Porthos|Porthos]] 13:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Age of consent

2007-07-19T19:17:56Z

Porthos:

'''Age of consent''' is a legal and moral principle. It presupposes that children and adolescents are not morally capable of making free choices (see also [[free will]]).

Not being able to make free choices absolves minors from adult guilt if they commit certain crimes. Either their parents will be held responsible, as in case of theft or vandalism, or the child will simply be considered "too young to know better".

Children cannot enter into binding contracts, are not permitted to drive cars on public roads, join the armed forces or get married. In the U.S., a parent may permit their 17-year-old child to join the armed forces. Various states differ as to what age a minor must be before their parents can permit them to marry.

When an adult seduces a minor, this is considered a crime because the child is not old enough to make such a weighty decision as to enter into a sexual relationship. The age of consent for this decision varies (see [[statutory rape]]). A parent who takes advantage of their child's innocence and inability to choose responsibility commits the crime of incest if they seduce their own offspring (it is also forbidden in the [[Bible]]).

==Age of consent in law==
In law the age of consent is the age at which a person is deemed to be competent to give consent to an activity, such as sexual intercourse or medical treatment, which would be otherwise be unlawful without [[informed consent]].

The age of consent is one of several legal principles that govern the rights and responsibilities of minors in [[common law]] systems, such as:
*The ''age of licence'' is the minimum age that a person must obtain to be permitted to undertake an activity, such as driving a motor vehicle on public roads.
*The ''age of criminal responsibility'' is the age at which a person is deemed to be fully responsible for their criminal actions.
*The ''age of majority'' is the age at which a person is deemed to have the rights and responsibilities of an adult and the age at which parental rights and responsibilities cease.

The age of consent in 3 U.S. states is 14; in 1 state it is 15; in 33 states it is 16; in 6 states it is 17; and in 7 states it is 18. Worldwide, the average age of consent is 16.<ref>http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:law]]