Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Greatest Mysteries of World History

2009-01-19T04:15:26Z

RodWeathers: The Greek Empire is no mystery. Alexander died and it was divided up.

Here are some mysteries or unresolved issues about World History:

#What is the history of marriage?
#How did the Egyptians build the pyramids?
#Did (pre-Abraham) Hebrews in Egypt participate in building the pyramids?
#How did people construct the ziggurats?
#In what language did Jesus preach?
#Why did Islam grow so rapidly?
#Who was right, the Catholics or the Protestants?
#Is modern Israel a fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
#Is democracy compatible with Islam?
#Did people have a higher intelligent (IQ) in ancient times than today?
#Why was there the fall and decline of the Roman Empire?

== See also ==
* [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History]]

[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Greatest Myths of World History

2009-01-18T21:34:04Z

RodWeathers: This is more than misinterpretation. It never occurred.

Here is a growing list of the greatest myths of world history:

#[[Marie Antoinette]]'s "Let them eat cake" was almost certainly never uttered. The phrase was likely invented by anti-monarchist revolutionaries seeking to have Marie and Louis XVI executed.

American Indian

2009-01-16T17:11:51Z

RodWeathers:

'''American Indians''' are the descendants of the inhabitants of [[North America|North]] and [[South America]] before the coming of [[Europe]]ans in 1492.

A few American Indians prefer to be called [[Native American]]s in order to distinguish themselves from the people of [[India]], and to emphasize their North America ancestry.

During the [[American Civil War]], many Indian tribes supported the [[Confederacy]], on the grounds that they were against the U.S. government and due to the fact that many among the so called "civilized tribes" such as the [[Cherokee]] also owned African slaves.<ref>Descendants Of Freedmen Of The Five Civilized Tribes - History[http://www.freedmen5tribes.com/History.htm]</ref>

== Sovereignty ==

In the [[United States]] there are 562 Native American tribes that retain their independent sovereignty.

== Origins ==

The widely taught theory that American Indians are descendants of migrants from [[Asia]], who crossed the [[Bering Strait|Bering Straitland bridge]] during an [[Ice Age]], is almost certainly false. [[Liberal]] archaeologists long insisted that this took place as early as 20,000 years ago.<ref name="who">TIME - Who Were The First Americans?, By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK, ANDREA DORFMAN, Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006 [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169905,00.html]</ref> But the facts are that American Indians have very different characteristics from Asians, ranging from blood types to DNA, making claims of such ancestry virtually absurd.<ref>For example, American Indians have among the highest percentage for any ethnicity of blood type "O", while Asians have the lowest percentage. As another example, American Indian fingerprint patterns are strikingly different from Asians'.</ref> Recent linguistic study shows no connection between American Indian and East Asian language, and archaeological evidence shows that each population used fundamentally different tools, suggesting no technology transfer via migration.<ref>Fortescue, Michael D., ''Language Relations Across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence,'' 87-108.</ref>

People today who are only partly descended from those early American Indians are still considered to be American Indians if they maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. However, each Indian tribe or band has its own definitions regarding membership, some based on historical tradition, others based on rules (like blood quanta) imposed by the US Government.

In 1996 there was a discovery of fragments of a skeleton called the [[Kennewick Man]]. But serious doubts about the authenticity of these remains have resulted in litigation and criticism. Some claimed that [[radiocarbon dating]] supported an age of more than 9000 years.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/kennewickman.html</ref> The morphology of the Kennewick Man remains is said to differ from that of present day Native Americans, suggesting a different ancestry<ref>http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/kennewick.html</ref> but there remains significant controversy about that.<ref name="who" />

=== Creationist explanations ===
Some [[creation scientists]] have pointed to the American Indian population's lack of any ties to other populations as evidence of biblical veracity. The population was established after the destruction of the Tower of [[Babel]], as God dispersed the nations, their languages, and skills.<ref>Ronald L. Numbers, ''The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design,'' 467.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[North American Indians]]
* [[Native American]]
* [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]

[[Category:Ethnicities]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:South America]]

American Indian

2009-01-16T17:07:58Z

RodWeathers:

'''American Indians''' are the descendants of the inhabitants of [[North America|North]] and [[South America]] before the coming of [[Europe]]ans in 1492.

A few American Indians prefer to be called [[Native American]]s in order to distinguish themselves from the people of [[India]], and to emphasize their North America ancestry.

During the [[American Civil War]], many Indian tribes supported the [[Confederacy]], on the grounds that they were against the U.S. government and due to the fact that many among the so called "civilized tribes" such as the [[Cherokee]] also owned African slaves.<ref>Descendants Of Freedmen Of The Five Civilized Tribes - History[http://www.freedmen5tribes.com/History.htm]</ref>

== Sovereignty ==

In the [[United States]] there are 562 Native American tribes that retain their independent sovereignty.

== Origins ==

The widely taught theory that American Indians are descendants of migrants from [[Asia]], who crossed the [[Bering Strait|Bering Straitland bridge]] during an [[Ice Age]], is almost certainly false. [[Liberal]] archaeologists long insisted that this took place as early as 20,000 years ago.<ref name="who">TIME - Who Were The First Americans?, By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK, ANDREA DORFMAN, Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006 [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169905,00.html]</ref> But the facts are that American Indians have very different characteristics from Asians, ranging from blood types to DNA, making claims of such ancestry virtually absurd.<ref>For example, American Indians have among the highest percentage for any ethnicity of blood type "O", while Asians have the lowest percentage. As another example, American Indian fingerprint patterns are strikingly different from Asians'.</ref> Recent linguistic study shows no connection between American Indian and East Asian language, and archaeological evidence shows that each population used fundamentally different tools, suggesting no technology transfer via migration.<ref>Fortescue, Michael D., ''Language Relations Across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence,'' 87-108.</ref>

People today who are only partly descended from those early American Indians are still considered to be American Indians if they maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. However, each Indian tribe or band has its own definitions regarding membership, some based on historical tradition, others based on rules (like blood quanta) imposed by the US Government.

In 1996 there was a discovery of fragments of a skeleton called the [[Kennewick Man]]. But serious doubts about the authenticity of these remains have resulted in litigation and criticism. Some claimed that [[radiocarbon dating]] supported an age of more than 9000 years.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/kennewickman.html</ref> The morphology of the Kennewick Man remains is said to differ from that of present day Native Americans, suggesting a different ancestry<ref>http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/kennewick.html</ref> but there remains significant controversy about that.<ref name="who" />

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[North American Indians]]
* [[Native American]]
* [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]

[[Category:Ethnicities]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:South America]]

American Indian

2009-01-16T17:07:28Z

RodWeathers:

'''American Indians''' are the descendants of the inhabitants of [[North America|North]] and [[South America]] before the coming of [[Europe]]ans in 1492.

A few American Indians prefer to be called [[Native American]]s in order to distinguish themselves from the people of [[India]], and to emphasize their North America ancestry.

During the [[American Civil War]], many Indian tribes supported the [[Confederacy]], on the grounds that they were against the U.S. government and due to the fact that many among the so called "civilized tribes" such as the [[Cherokee]] also owned African slaves.<ref>Descendants Of Freedmen Of The Five Civilized Tribes - History[http://www.freedmen5tribes.com/History.htm]</ref>

== Sovereignty ==

In the [[United States]] there are 562 Native American tribes that retain their independent sovereignty.

== Origins ==

The widely taught theory that American Indians are descendants of migrants from [[Asia]], who crossed the [[Bering Strait|Bering Straitland bridge]] during an [[Ice Age]], is almost certainly false. [[Liberal]] archaeologists long insisted that this took place as early as 20,000 years ago.<ref name="who">TIME - Who Were The First Americans?, By MICHAEL D. LEMONICK, ANDREA DORFMAN, Sunday, Mar. 05, 2006 [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1169905,00.html]</ref> But the facts are that American Indians have very different characteristics from Asians, ranging from blood types to DNA, making claims of such ancestry virtually absurd.<ref>For example, American Indians have among the highest percentage for any ethnicity of blood type "O", while Asians have the lowest percentage. As another example, American Indian fingerprint patterns are strikingly different from Asians'.</ref> Recent linguistic study shows no connection between American Indian and East Asian language, and archaeological evidence shows that each population used fundamentally different tools, suggesting no technology transfer via migration.<ref>Fortescue, Michael D., ''Language Relations Across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence,'' 87-108.</ref>
</ref>

People today who are only partly descended from those early American Indians are still considered to be American Indians if they maintain tribal affiliation or community attachment. However, each Indian tribe or band has its own definitions regarding membership, some based on historical tradition, others based on rules (like blood quanta) imposed by the US Government.

In 1996 there was a discovery of fragments of a skeleton called the [[Kennewick Man]]. But serious doubts about the authenticity of these remains have resulted in litigation and criticism. Some claimed that [[radiocarbon dating]] supported an age of more than 9000 years.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/kennewickman.html</ref> The morphology of the Kennewick Man remains is said to differ from that of present day Native Americans, suggesting a different ancestry<ref>http://www.archaeology.org/online/news/kennewick.html</ref> but there remains significant controversy about that.<ref name="who" />

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[North American Indians]]
* [[Native American]]
* [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]

[[Category:Ethnicities]]
[[Category:North America]]
[[Category:South America]]

Essay:Ex-gay

2009-01-16T16:41:42Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 611749 by Phillipmcrvs420 (Talk) Undo lib. vand.

Fair use:
{{quotation|Silo has become perhaps the world's first documented ex-gay penguin. He has moved out of his nest with Roy and taken up with Scrappy, a hot little bird who recently moved in from Sea World Zoo in San Diego. I guess he was wishing for a California girl.

For those who have pointed to Roy and Silo as models for us all, these developments must be disappointing. Some gay activists might actually be angry.

With Silo and Scrappy picking out curtains together, will gay rights groups now acknowledge that sexual orientation changes? [http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0101.html] }}

If it is a voluntary choice to be ex-[[gay]] that's natural. It also happens that previously straight people become gay. What's not natural is to be a suppressed gay. That's what happens when people who are naturally gay are under [[social]] pressure to conform to the [[heterosexual]] model or to try to conform to it if they can't.

==Notes==
<references />
[[Category:Essays]]

Universe

2009-01-15T22:47:01Z

RodWeathers: Revert Vandalism

The '''universe''' is, in principle, all of material existence or natural things ([[matter]] and [[energy]]).
Therefore, everything outside of the universe is not natural or material, but supernatural (things going beyond nature).
However, in order to solve problems with naturalistic explanations of the the origin of the universe, some speculate that there are other universes.

There have been and continue to be a number of competing ideas about the universe, but most agree that the universe is expanding.
The size, shape, and age of the universe, as well as how it began, are, however, all points of contention.

== Shape ==

The common view among [[cosmology|cosmologists]] is that the universe is a four dimensional Riemannian [[manifold]] whose spatial part of the metric is increasing over time. This is interpreted as an expansion of the universe.

Imagine you are at a random spot on a spotted balloon, when someone inflates the balloon you'll see the spots moving away from you, so it would seem you are at the center of the expansion.
Furthermore, the further away the spots are the faster they move away from you.
This is also true for the universe: the more distant a [[galaxy]] is, the faster it moves away from us.

Further imagine that you are a creature that only exists in two dimensions.
That is, you have width and depth, but no height.
So living on the surface of the balloon, you cannot see the shape of the balloon itself.
If you went for a walk in a straight line, you would actually go around the balloon and end up where you started, despite not being aware that you were travelling in a circle.

The theory goes that the three dimensions of our universe that we can see are like the two dimensions of the surface of the balloon, which wraps around on itself in another dimension, so that if we travelled through space in a straight line, we would eventually return to our starting point. The fourth dimension is [[time]] and [[String theory]] holds the universe exists right up to [[The Tenth Dimension|ten dimensions]].

One consequence of this idea is that the universe therefore has no edge (just like there is no edge to the surface of a balloon) and therefore no center.
Thus for any location in space, it would appear that that location is at the center of the expansion of the universe.

If we were really at the center of the universe, this would support the idea that the [[Earth]] occupies a "special place" in the universe, which would support the biblical idea of [[creation]], even though the [[Bible]] does not claim that the Earth is physically in the center of the universe.
So many scientists find the idea that it only ''looks like'' we are at the center of the universe an attractive one.

However, recent [[redshift]] data showing a series of concentric [[sphere]]s of redshift quantization supports the idea that our [[galaxy]] (the [[Milky Way Galaxy|Milky Way]]) really is at or close to the center of the universe.<ref>Humphreys, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ Our galaxy is the center of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show], ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2):95–104, 2002.</ref>

== Age ==

According to one version of{{fact}} the [[big Bang theory|big bang theory]], the universe erupted into existence from nothing<ref>Discover magazine, in introducing the ideas of [[Alan Guth]], said, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover, April 2002.</ref> approximately 14 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] have developed a number of models which explain the age of the universe as being affected by the time-warping effects of gravity as predicted by [[Einstein]]'s [[General Theory of Relativity]], so that the age of the universe as measured by a hypothetical observer at the edge of the universe might be 14 billion years, but as measured by an observer on Earth is only 6,000 years.<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', 2007.</ref>

== Size ==

A recent calculation placed the visible universe at about 156 billion [[light year]]s across.<ref name="size">[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!] (Space.com)</ref>
This creates a dilemma of faster than light movement, but it is speculated that the expansion of space itself can exceed the [[speed of light]] even if the objects within it moving on their own can not.<ref name="size" />
As an analogy, imagine ants (galaxies), that can't walk faster than 20 centimetres per second, sitting on an elastic cord.
Normally two ants moving away from each other could not exceed a speed of 40cm/s relative to each other (speed of light).
However, if the cord is stretched while the ants are moving (expansion of space), the ants' speed relative to each other can be greater.

Current theories on the universe means that scientists are only able to account for 4% of the matter in the universe, so new theories of dark matter (unseen matter) have been developed to explain this.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20360059/ Where is the rest of the universe?]</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/models_universe.shtml Early Models of the Universe]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Finland

2009-01-15T22:44:26Z

RodWeathers: Revert vandalism

{{Country
|name =''Suomi'' ''Finland''
|map =Finland rel96.jpg
|flag =Flag of Finland.png
|arms =Arms of Finland.png
|capital =Helsinki
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy
|government-raw =
|language =Finnish, Swedish
|king =
|queen =
|monarch-raw =
|president =Tarja Halonen
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Matti Vanhanen
|pm-raw =
|area =130,558 sq mi
|pop =5,296,128 (2007)
|pop-basis =
|gdp =
|gdp-year =$193.491 billion (2005)
|gdp-pc =$40,197 (2005)
|currency =euro
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Republic of Finland''' (''Suomi'' or ''Suomen tasavalta'' in Finnish, ''Republiken Finland'' in Swedish) is a country of northern [[Europe]] known for its largely [[social democracy|social democratic]] economic system. The Finnish [[conservative]] party, the [[National Coalition]] led by [[Jyrki Katainen]], is its principal conservative organization.

The state capital is [[Helsinki]] and the principal exports are machines, electronics (for example cellphones) and forestry products. [[Finnish]] is the principal language spoken, a [[Finno-Ugric]] language. Like many nations that do international business, or have a strong tourist trade, many Finns speak English to facilitate communication with other countries. The second official language is Swedish, which has the same status as Finnish in the country. Finland is known as "the land of lakes".

==Geography==
The area of Finland is approximately 338 000 square kilometers, with a north-south axis of 890 kilometers. Most of the landscape is covered with lakes and forests. Finland is often called the "Land of Thousands of Lakes", which is true, because the number of lakes in the country exceeds 188 000, of which about 56 000 have an area of one hectare or more. In the sea there are more than 3 000 islands. Cultivated land and habitation only account for 17% of the land area, rest being mainly [[Norway spruce]] forests.

Finland is bound by [[Sweden]] in the Northwest, [[Norway]] in the North, [[Russia]] in the East, the [[Gulf of Finland]] in the South and the [[Gulf of Bothnia]] in the West.

==People==
*Population (September 2007): 5.29 million.
*Population growth rate (2006): 0.4%.
*Ethnic groups: Finns, Swedes, Lapps, Sami, Roma, Tatars.
*Religions: Lutheran 82.5%, Orthodox 1.1%.
*Languages: Finnish 91.5%, Swedish 5.5% (both official); small Lapp- (0.03%) and Russian-speaking (0.8%) minorities.
*Education: Years compulsory--9. Attendance--almost 100%. Literacy--almost 100%.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--2.8/1,000 (2006). Life expectancy--males 75.8 yrs., females 82.8 yrs.
*Work force (2.65 million; of which 2.44 million are employed): Public services--32.8%; industry--19%; commerce--15.6%; finance, insurance, and business services--13.8%; agriculture and forestry--4.7%; transport and communications--7.4%; construction--6.7%.

===Culture===
Finnish people (Finns) are known for their love of nature. Nature is prominent in the works of Finnish artists, such as [[Jean Sibelius]], [[Aki Kaurismäki]], [[Alvar Aalto]].

The great masters of Finnish literature include [[Mika Waltari]], [[Väinö Linna]], [[Johan Ludvig Runeberg]]. Finland is a bi-lingual country and has produced its literary heritage in both Finnish and Swedish. The beloved Moomintrolls were created by the writer and graphic artist Tove Jansson.

Another important facet of traditional Finnish culture is the love of the Finnish [[sauna]].
<div style="font-size: 80%">
{|class="wikitable" align=right border=1 style="border-collapse: collapse; margin-left: 10pt; margin-right: 1pt"
!colspan=4|Population of Finland, 1750–2000<ref>{{cite book | last=Aunesluoma | first=Juhana | coauthors=Heikkonen, Esko; Ojakoski, Matti | title=Lukiolaisen yhteiskuntatieto | language=Finnish | publisher=[[SanomaWSOY|WSOY]] | date=2006}}</ref>
|-
!Year!!Population!!Year!!Population
|-
||1750||align=right|421,000||1880||align=right|2,060,800
|-
||1760||align=right|491,000||1890||align=right|2,380,100
|-
||1770||align=right|561,000||1900||align=right|2,655,900
|-
||1780||align=right|663,000||1910||align=right|2,943,400
|-
||1790||align=right|705,600||1920||align=right|3,147,600
|-
||1800||align=right|832,700||1930||align=right|3,462,700
|-
||1810||align=right|863,300||1940||align=right|3,695,617
|-
||1820||align=right|1,177,500||1950||align=right|4,029,803
|-
||1830||align=right|1,372,100||1960||align=right|4,446,222
|-
||1840||align=right|1,445,600||1970||align=right|4,598,336
|-
||1850||align=right|1,636,900||1980||align=right|4,787,778
|-
||1860||align=right|1,746,700||1990||align=right|4,998,478
|-
||1870||align=right|1,768,800||2000||align=right|5,181,000
|}
</div>

===Population===
Finland currently numbers 5,302,778 inhabitants and has an average population density of 17 inhabitants per square kilometer. This makes it, after Norway and Iceland, the most sparsely populated country in Europe. Finland's population has always been concentrated in the southern parts of the country, a phenomenon even more pronounced after 20th century urbanization.

The share of foreign citizens in Finland is 2.5 percent being among the lowest of the European Union countries. Most of them are from Russia, Estonia and Sweden.

===Religion===
Most Finns are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (81.7 percent). With approximately 4.6 million members, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland is one of the largest Lutheran churches in the world. A minority belong to the Finnish Orthodox Church (1.1 percent; see Eastern Orthodox Church). Other Protestantism denominations and the Roman Catholic Church in Finland are significantly.

The main Lutheran and Orthodox churches are constitutional national churches of Finland with special roles such as in state ceremonies and schools. A university degree in theology is compulsory for Lutheran priests. Representatives at Lutheran Church assemblies are selected in church elections every four years.

The Finnish are highly religious people nearing but not surpassing the United States of America in religiosity considering the populations of these two countries.

====President and cabinet====
Elected for a 6-year term, the president:
*Handles foreign policy, except for certain international agreements and decisions of peace or war, which must be submitted to parliament, and EU relations, which are handled by the prime minister;
*Is commander in chief of the armed forces and has wide decree and appointive powers;
*May initiate legislation, block legislation by pocket veto, and call extraordinary parliamentary sessions; and
*Appoints the prime minister and the rest of the cabinet (Council of State). The Council of State is made up of the prime minister and ministers for the various departments of the central government as well as an ex officio member, the Chancellor of Justice. Ministers are not obliged to be members of the Eduskunta and need not be formally identified with any political party.
The president may, upon proposal of the prime minister and after having heard the parliamentary groups, order parliament to be dissolved, and a new election held.

====Parliament====
Constitutionally, the 200-member, unicameral Eduskunta is the supreme authority in Finland. It may alter the constitution, bring about the resignation of the Council of State, and override presidential vetoes; its acts are not subject to judicial review. Legislation may be initiated by the president, the Council of State, or one of the Eduskunta members.

The Eduskunta is elected on the basis of proportional representation. All persons 18 or older, except military personnel on active duty and a few high judicial officials, are eligible for election. The regular parliamentary term is 4 years; however, the president may dissolve the Eduskunta and order new elections at the request of the prime minister and after consulting the speaker of parliament.

====Judicial system====
The judicial system is divided between courts with regular civil and criminal jurisdiction and special courts, run by ducks, with responsibility for litigation between the public and the administrative organs of the state. Finnish law is codified. Although there is no writ of habeas corpus or bail, the maximum period of pretrial detention has been reduced to 4 days. The Finnish court system consists of local courts, regional appellate courts, a Supreme Court, and a Supreme Administrative Court.

====Administrative divisions====
Finland consists of five provinces and the self-ruled province of the Aland Islands. Below the provincial level, the country is divided into cities, townships, and communes administered by municipal and communal councils elected by proportional representation once every 4 years. At the provincial level, the five mainland provinces are administered by provincial boards composed of civil servants, each headed by a governor. The boards are responsible to the Ministry of the Interior and play a supervisory and coordinating role within the provinces.

The island province of Aland is located near the 60th parallel between Sweden and Finland. It enjoys local autonomy and demilitarized status by virtue of an international convention of 1921, implemented most recently by the Act on Aland Self-Government of 1951. The islands are further distinguished by the fact that they are entirely Swedish-speaking. Government is vested in the provincial council, which consists of 30 delegates elected directly by Aland's citizens.

====Military====
Finland's defense forces consist of 35,000 persons in uniform (26,000 army; 5,000 navy; and 4,000 air force). The country's defense budget equals about 1.3% of GDP. There is universal male conscription under which all men serve from six to 12 months. As of 1995, women were permitted to serve as volunteers. A reserve force ensures that Finland can field 490,000 trained military personnel in case of need.

====Political parties====
Finland's proportional representation system encourages a multitude of political parties and has resulted in many coalition governments. Political activity by communists was legalized in 1944, and although four major parties have dominated the postwar political arena, none now has a majority position. In elections held in 2007, the Center Party (Keskusta), traditionally representing rural interests, kept its position as the biggest party. The then-opposition Conservative Party, however, came away as the biggest winner, gaining 10 seats and becoming the second-largest political party in the country. The Center then formed a four-party governing coalition with the Conservatives and the Swedish People's Party and the Greens. The Social Democratic Party (SDP) suffered a defeat in these elections and fell to the third position among the big parties. Of the other parties, the True Finns, the Green League, and the Swedish People’s Party were able to gain seats in parliament. The Conservative Party received the portfolios of foreign minister, finance minister, and defense minister, among others, and became an important player after a long interval.

===Principal Government Officials===
*President--Tarja Halonen
*Prime Minister--Matti Vanhanen
*Foreign Minister--Ilkka Kanerva
*Ambassador to the United States--Pekka Lintu
*Ambassador to the United Nations--Kirsti Lintonen

===Foreign Relations===
Finland's basic foreign policy goal from the end of the Continuation War with the U.S.S.R. in 1944 until 1991 was to avoid great-power conflicts and to build mutual confidence with the Soviet Union. Although the country was culturally, socially, and politically Western, Finns realized they must live in peace with the U.S.S.R. and take no action that might be interpreted as a security threat. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 opened up dramatic new possibilities for Finland and has resulted in the Finns actively seeking greater participation in Western political and economic structures. Finland joined the European Union in 1995.

====Previous relations with the Soviet Union, and today with Russia====
The principal architect of the post-1944 foreign policy of neutrality was J.K. Paasikivi, who was President from 1946 to 1956. Urho Kekkonen, President from 1956 until 1981, further developed this policy, stressing that Finland should be an active rather than a passive neutral. This policy is now popularly known as the "Paasikivi-Kekkonen Line."

Finland and the U.S.S.R. signed a peace treaty at Paris in February 1947 limiting the size of Finland's defense forces and providing for the cession to the Soviet Union of the Petsamo area on the Arctic coast, the Karelian Isthmus in southeastern Finland, and other territory along the former eastern border. Another provision, terminated in 1956, leased the Porkkala area near Helsinki to the U.S.S.R. for use as a naval base and gave free access to this area across Finnish territory.

The 1947 treaty also called for Finland to pay to the Soviet Union reparations of 300 million gold dollars (amounting to an estimated $570 million in 1952, the year the payments ended). Although an ally of the Soviet Union in World War II, the United States was not a signatory to this treaty because it had not been at war with Finland.

In April 1948, Finland signed an Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance with the Soviet Union. Under this mutual assistance pact, Finland was obligated--with the aid of the Soviet Union, if necessary--to resist armed attacks by Germany or its allies against Finland or against the U.S.S.R. through Finland. At the same time, the agreement recognized Finland's desire to remain outside great-power conflicts. This agreement was renewed for 20 years in 1955, in 1970, and again in 1983 to the year 2003, although the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union led to the agreement's abrogation.

The Finns responded cautiously in 1990-91 to the decline of Soviet power and the U.S.S.R.'s subsequent dissolution. They unilaterally abrogated restrictions imposed by the 1947 and 1948 treaties, joined in voicing Nordic concern over the coup against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and gave increasing unofficial encouragement to Baltic independence.

At the same time, by replacing the Soviet-Finnish mutual assistance pact with treaties on general cooperation and trade, Finns put themselves on an equal footing while retaining a friendly bilateral relationship. Finland now is boosting cross-border commercial ties and touting its potential as a commercial gateway to Russia. It has reassured Russia that it will not raise claims for Finnish territory seized by the U.S.S.R. and continues to reaffirm the importance of good bilateral relations.

====Multilateral Relations====
Finnish foreign policy emphasizes its participation in multilateral organizations. Finland joined the United Nations in 1955 and the EU in 1995. As noted, the country also is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Partnership for Peace as well as a member in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. As a NATO partner, Finland had 100 troops in Afghanistan as of September 2007.

Finland is well represented in the UN civil service in proportion to its population and belongs to several of its specialized and related agencies. Finnish troops have participated in UN peacekeeping activities since 1956, and the Finns continue to be one of the largest per capita contributors of peacekeepers in the world. Finland is an active participant in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and in early 1995 assumed the co-chairmanship of the OSCE's Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Cooperation with the other Scandinavian countries also is important to Finland, and it has been a member of the Nordic Council since 1955. Under the council's auspices, the Nordic countries have created a common labor market and have abolished immigration controls among themselves. The council also serves to coordinate social and cultural policies of the participating countries and has promoted increased cooperation in many fields.

In addition to the organizations already mentioned, Finland became a member of the following organizations: Bank for International Settlements, 1930; International Monetary Fund, 1948; International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 1948; General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), 1950; International Finance Corporation, 1956; International Development Association, 1960; European Free Trade Association, 1961; Asian Development Bank, 1966; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1969; Inter-American Development Bank, 1977; African Development Bank, 1982; Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, 1988; the Council of Europe, 1989; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in Central and Eastern Europe, 1991; World Trade Organization, 1995; and INTELSAT, 1999. Finland entered Stage Three of EMU (the European Monetary Union) in 1999. All the Nordic countries, including Finland, joined the Schengen area in March 2001.

==Economy==
Finland has an industrial economy based on abundant forest resources, capital investments, and high technology.

The Finnish economy has made enormous strides since the severe recession of the early 1990s. Finland successfully joined the euro zone and has outperformed euro-area partners in terms of economic growth and public finance. In the last few years, the Finnish economy has performed reasonably well. Total output was 5% higher in 2006 than in 2005, but economic activity leveled off in the latter half of the year. GDP is predicted to grow by 4.4% in 2007, while 2008 is likely to show a slower rate of growth, estimated at 3.3%. Despite the current favorable outlook, there is a degree of uncertainty in the Finnish economy caused by the large fluctuations in electronics industry production, together with resource constraints. Cost and price pressures have increased, and there is a threat of industry’s price competitiveness starting to weaken.

Unemployment decreased significantly from 1994 to 7.7% in 2006 and is expected to drop to 6.7% in 2007. A relatively inflexible labor market and high employer-paid social security taxes hamper growth in employment. Labor bottlenecks are becoming more common in certain sectors, and this will increasingly restrict growth in output in the future. The main constraint to medium-term economic growth will be the drop in the population of working age once the post-war baby boomers reach retirement age.

Exports of goods and services contribute 32% of Finland's GDP. Metals and engineering (including electronics) and timber (including pulp and paper) are Finland's main industries. The United States is Finland's third most important trading partner outside of Europe. With a 3.8% share of imports in 2006, the United States was Finland's seventh-largest supplier. The total value of U.S. exports to Finland in 2006 was $2.6 billion. Major exports from the United States to Finland continue to be machinery, telecommunications equipment and parts, aircraft and aircraft parts, computers, peripherals and software, electronic components, chemicals, medical equipment, and some agricultural products. The primary competition for American companies comes from Russia, Germany, Sweden, and China. The main export items from Finland to the United States are electronics, machinery, ships and boats, paper and paperboard, refined petroleum products, telecommunications equipment and parts. In 2006, the United States was Finland's fourth-largest customer after Germany (11.3%), Sweden (10.5%), and Russia (10.1%), with an export share of 6.5%, or $5 billion. However, trade is only part of the totality: the 10 biggest Finnish companies in the United States have a combined turnover that is three times the value of Finland's total exports to the United States. About 2.3% of the Finnish GDP comes from exports to the United States.

Except for timber and several minerals, Finland depends on imported raw materials, energy, and some components for its manufactured products. Farms tend to be small, but farmers own sizable timber stands that are harvested for supplementary income in winter. The country's main agricultural products are dairy, meat, and grains. Finland's EU accession has accelerated the process of restructuring and downsizing of this sector.
*GDP: $210.8 billion (EUR 167.9 billion).
*GDP growth rate: 5%.
*Per capita income: $40,036 (EUR 31,886).
*Inflation rate: 1.6% (2006 average); 2.6% (September 2007).
*Natural resources: Forests, minerals (copper, zinc, iron), farmland.
*Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (2.9% of GDP): Products--meat (pork and beef), grain (wheat, rye, barley, oats), dairy products, potatoes, rapeseed.
*Industry (30.1% of GDP): Types--metal (including electronics and electrical equipment) and engineering, forest products, chemicals, shipbuilding, foodstuffs, textiles.
*Trade: Exports--$77.08 billion. Major markets--EU 56.9%, Russia 10.1%, U.S. 6.5%, China 3.2%. Imports--$68.9 billion. Major suppliers--EU 55.3%, Russia 14.1%, China 7.5%, U.S. 3.8%.

==History==
The origins of the Finnish people are still a matter of conjecture, although many scholars argue that their original home was in what is now west-central [[Siberia]]. The Finns arrived in their present territory thousands of years ago, pushing the indigenous Lapps into the more remote northern regions. Finnish and Lappish--the language of Finland's small Lapp minority--both are Finno-Ugric languages and are in the Uralic rather than the Indo-European family.

Finland's nearly 700-year association with the Kingdom of [[Sweden]] began in 1154 with the introduction of Christianity by Sweden's King Eric. During the ensuing centuries, Finland played an important role in the political life of the Swedish-Finnish realm, and Finnish soldiers often predominated in Swedish armies. Finns also formed a significant proportion of the first "Swedish" settlers in 17th-century America.

Following Finland's incorporation into Sweden in the 12th century, Swedish became the dominant language, although Finnish recovered its predominance after a 19th-century resurgence of Finnish nationalism. Publication in 1835 of the Finnish national epic, The Kalevala--a collection of traditional myths and legends--first stirred the nationalism that later led to Finland's independence from Russia.

In 1809, Finland was conquered by the armies of Czar Alexander I and thereafter remained an autonomous grand duchy connected with the Russian Empire until the end of 1917. On December 6, 1917, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, Finland declared its independence. In 1918, the country experienced a brief but bitter civil war that colored domestic politics for many years. During [[World War II]], Finland fought the [[Soviet Union]] twice--in the [[Winter War]] of 1939-40 and again in the [[Continuation War]] of 1941-44. This was followed by the [[Lapland War]] of 1944-45, when Finland fought against the Germans as they withdrew their forces from northern Finland.

During the Continuation War (1941-1944) Finland was a co-belligerent with [[Germany]]. However, Finnish Jews were not persecuted. Of the approximately 500 Jewish refugees who arrived in Finland, eight were handed over to the Germans, for which Finland submitted an official apology in 2000.<ref>[http://www.uta.fi/~tuulikki.vuonokari/fin-1.html Jews in Finland During World War II]</ref> Also during the war, approximately 2,600 Soviet prisoners of war were exchanged for 2,100 Finnish prisoners of war from Germany. In 2003, the Simon Wiesenthal Center submitted an official request for a full-scale investigation by the Finnish authorities of the prisoner exchange. It was established there were about 70 Jews among the extradited prisoners but none was extradited as a result of ethnic background or religious belief.

Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations and restraints on Finland vis-a-vis the U.S.S.R. as well as territorial concessions by Finland; both have been abrogated by Finland since the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union.

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:Copyright_Details_%28US_Government%29 Copyright Details]

[[Category:Finland]]
[[Category:European Countries]]
[[Category:EU Members]]
[[Category:Nordic Countries]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]

Aggression

2009-01-15T22:43:13Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 611171 by ShethOir (Talk) Undo vandalism

'''Aggression''' is a both a political and [[social]] concept. In politics and military affairs, it refers to taking the first move in a war - especially a war of conquest. The [[United Nations]] has proposed various treaties banning "aggression" but without giving any sort of definition of it at all.<ref>While arguments to include aggression centre on its extreme gravity and international repercussions, arguments against its inclusion centre on the lack of a sufficiently precise definition. Another part of the debate focused on the role of the Security Council in this regard. Pursuant to Article 39 of the UN Charter, the Security Council "shall determine" the existence of an "act of aggression". [http://www.un.org/icc/crimes.htm "Crimes within the Court's Jurisdiction"], [[ICC]]</ref>

In human society aggression is often synonymous with taking the initiative in any endeavor, such as sales, R&D or sports leadership.

Among animals of the same species, aggression is generally found among males competing for scarce resources such as territory, food, mates, and group dominance.

==Notes==
<references/>

[[category:sociology]]
[[category:political Terms]]

Illegal drugs

2009-01-15T22:43:01Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 611177 by ShethOir (Talk) Undo vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Arguments for legalization==
Whilst there are undoubtedly arguments against legalizing particular or all recreational drugs, there are arguments to the contrary.

*Crime. Some argue that the primary immorality associated with illicit drugs is the resultant drug-related crime. The cocaine industry is notoriously immoral, whilst a legal industry would almost certainly be far less so. Celerino Castillo, a twenty-year veteran of law enforcement (including twelve years in the [[Drug Enforcement Administration]]), calls the drug war a "vile and despicable presence doing irreparable harm to all of the American landscape," and insists that legalization is the only real solution to eliminating drug cartels and gangs.<ref>[http://mapinc.org/newsleap/v08/n258/a06.html Drug War Doing Irreparable Harm], Brownsville Herald, 3 March 2008.</ref>

*[[Human Rights]]. It has been suggested that it is a human right to have access to recreational drugs, and that it is immoral of the government to prevent this. However, this argument is not without criticism. Drug use may lead to a user negatively affecting the lives of others.

*Futility of criminalization. The laws on illicit drugs cannot be effectively enforced and drugs are easy to procure. When a law cannot be effectively enforced, it is of questionable merit. Also, since [[alcohol]] is a dangerous, legal alternative, people will frequently turn to it instead, which is arguably no better.

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

[[Category:Illegal Drugs]]

Keith Joseph

2009-01-15T22:42:51Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 611182 by ShethOir (Talk) Undo vandalism

'''Keith Joseph''' (b. January 17, 1918; d. December 10, 1994) British conservative politician. His father, Sir Samuel Joseph, served as Lord Mayor of London in 1942-1943 and at the end of his term he had been created a baronet. On his death in 1944, his son inherited the title and became known as Sir Keith. He won the safe Conservative seat of Leeds-North-East at a by-election in February 1956 and held it until his retirement from the Commons in 1987 when he received a Life Peerage.

He was seen as the obvious right-wing challenger to Ted Heath for the leadership of the party in 1974. However, after some ill-judged speeches he withdrew and supported [[Margaret Thatcher]].

Keith Joseph did not prove to be an efficient administrator. Yet, he had the talent to adopt new ideas and develop them further even if it meant questioning the conventions of the time. [[Enoch Powell]] and he were the British politicians [[Margaret Thatcher]] identified as having the greatest influence on her.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Keith, Joseph}}

[[Category:British Politics]]

George Clooney

2009-01-15T22:42:29Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 611209 by ShethOir (Talk) Undo vandalism

'''George Clooney''' (b. May 6, 1961) is an [[American]] actor. His role on the television series ''E.R.'' brought him to public attention. He has since had an extensive acting career, acting in such movies as ''Batman & Robin'', ''O Brother, Where Art Thou?'', and ''Ocean's Eleven''. He has appeared in over 60 movies and TV shows.

Clooney has [[liberal]] political leanings and is an outspoken critic of the [[Iraq war]]. He supported [[Barack Obama]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election]].

Clooney's outspoken views have led him to make statements that show unquestionable character, such as joking about [[Charlton Heston]]'s [[Alzheimer's disease]]. Worse, was that he actually defended his actions afterwards stating that Heston deserved it.<ref>http://www.thebostonchannel.com/entertainment/1931445/detail.html</ref> Heston replied that George should be careful, as he had as much chance of contracting the disease as anyone else.<ref>http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dpatton/2008/dp_04072.shtml |Charlton Heston Made History</ref>

== External Links ==

* [http://imdb.com/name/nm0000123/ Internet Movie Database]
* [http://www.boycottliberalism.com/biographies/Clooney.htm Liberal Hall of Shame Biography]

== References ==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clooney, George}}

[[Category:Actors]]
[[Category:Directors]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]

Darwin, Australia

2009-01-15T22:42:02Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 611195 by ShethOir (Talk) Undo evolutionist vandalism

''The following article is about the city called Darwin in Australia. For the article on Charles Darwin please see:'' [[Charles Darwin]]

'''Darwin''' is a city and port in northern [[Australia]]. It is the capital of the [[Northern Territory]], and by far the largest city in that territory. It is named after [[Charles Darwin]], and is the most cyclone-ravaged city in Australia. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v5/i1/darwin.asp</ref>

==World War II==
In [[World War II]], Darwin was the target of several Japanese bombing attacks.

The first attack on Darwin was on the morning of February 19, 1942. It was launched from a Japanese [[aircraft carrier|carrier]] group which included the fleet carriers ''[[Akagi]]'', ''[[Kaga]]'', ''[[Hiryu]]'', and ''[[Soryu]]'', all of which were veterans of the [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|Pearl Harbor attack]].<ref>''A History of War at Sea'', by Helmut Pemsel, Naval Institute Press, 1975</ref> The attacking force consisted of over 150 carrier based bombers, with 36 escorting [[Mitsubishi Zero|Zeros]]. Another attack by over 50 land-based, twin-engine bombers took place at midday. The bombings sank the destroyer USS ''Peary'' and several other ships, and destroyed several buildings.<ref>''The Lonely Ships'', by Edwin P. Hoyt, Jove Books, 1976</ref> The Japanese lost only a few planes in the raid, while several defending Allied planes were shot down. 243 people were killed, mostly on the ships that were sunk.

This attack, and another attack on the town of Broome on the northern coast two weeks later, raised fears that [[Japan]] would invade Australia next. Many officers in the Japanese military wanted to do exactly that, but other objectives (such as the attack on [[Battle of Midway|Midway]]) were given priority, and the invasion never materialized.

Darwin endured more raids, but the Japanese effort was more focused on dislodging Allied forces from [[New Guinea]], so the city would usually go several weeks between attacks. On March 18, the American Ninth Pursuit Squadron, equipped with [[P-40 Warhawk]]s, arrived at Darwin to take up defense duties. Japanese bombers attacked again on April 4, and the fighters downed four [[Mitsubishi G4M|Mitsubishi "Betties"]] and probably downed a Zero for the loss of two P-40s. Subsequent raids suffered similar losses.<ref>''P-40 Warhawk Aces of the Pacific'', by Carl Molesworth, Osprey Publishing, 2003</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Links==
*[http://en.travelnt.com/explore/darwin.aspx Tourism Information]
*[http://www.smh.com.au/news/Northern-Territory/Darwin/2005/02/17/1108500201604.html/ History and sites] from the Sydney Morning Herald
*[http://www.netherlandsnavy.nl/Special_darwin.htm Australia's Pearl Harbor: The Japanese Air Raid on Darwin]
*[http://www.ntl.nt.gov.au/online_resources/australias_northern_territory_wwii Online Exhibition of the Air Attack on Darwin]

[[Category:Australian Cities and Towns]]
[[Category:World War II]]

Darwin’s Dangerous Idea

2009-01-15T22:41:37Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 611239 by ShethOir (Talk) Undo evolutionist vandalism

In '''Darwin’s Dangerous Idea''', author [[Daniel Dennett]] describes [[Darwinism]] as a “universal acid; it eats through just about every traditional concept and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view.”<ref> [http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/14/oct95/dennett.htm Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea] - [[Phillip E. Johnson]] </ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Evolution]]

Liberal concealment

2009-01-15T21:23:42Z

RodWeathers:

'''Liberal concealment''' is the practice of withholding [[conservative]] information from young people, or discouraging them from learning it until ''after'' their minds close to it. Minds tend to close in proportion to age, and the goal is often to withhold the information as long as possible, at least until after a person makes key decision.

Examples include:

* Concealing from pregnant mothers the ultrasound image of their unborn children until ''after'' an [[abortion]]; about 80% of women who see their ultrasound decide not to abort.<ref>http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/145703/abortion_foes_use_ultrasound__focus_on_the_family_budgets/</ref>
* Concealing how [[gun control]] has led to increased [[socialism]] and even [[genocide]].<ref>http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/76holo.htm</ref>
* Concealing the [[Counterexamples to Evolution]].
* Concealing the extent to which some [[liberal]]s engage in [[deceit]].
* [[Abstinence denial]]

(please add more)

== References ==

<references/>

== See also ==

*[[Liberal censorship]]
*[[Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?]]

[[Category:United States Political Terms]]
[[Category:Liberal Deceit]]

Talk:Barry Goldwater

2009-01-15T18:26:26Z

RodWeathers: /* Why was this deleted? */

::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::Perhaps he should not be in the category libertarianism in which I placed his page. He may not have self-identified, but he had many more libertarian views (and even some pro-abortion ones, which many libertarians disagree with, myself included) than many of self-identified libertarians do. As such, he was a major influence that both the conservative movement and the libertarian philosophy should respect. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 18:24, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== Why was this deleted? ==

"Goldwater was defeated in 1964 after Democrat [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] used the fabricated [[Gulf of Tonkin]] incident to boost his reelection." It's factual and enlightening. Also, I wouldn't describe Goldwater as losing the leadership of the conservative movement. The movement adopted him, not vice-versa.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:Exactly. In point of fact, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Bill Bennett, George Deukmajian and Newt Gingrich all claimed to be carrying on Goldwater's fight and always credited him as being the titular conservative leader while he was alive. Goldwater was adopted as its leader just prior to the 1964 Republican Convention, due to his strong opposition to the Eastern, liberal wing, under Nelson Rockefeller's domination. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:03, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::The Gulf of Tonkin business had very little to do with the election (and Goldwater supported it); it misleads the readers about Goldwater's problem. He did lose the leadership of the movement, as the followers shifted to Reagan, and Goldwater seems to have lost interest in the national movement. There was no doubt whatever in 1960, 1961 and 1962 and 1963 that he was the #1 conservative leader by far--the "just prior" suggestion is flat wrong. While others acknowledged Barry's role, they did not call him their leader after 1964. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: Being attacked by a foreign nation provides a HUGE boost in popularity to a sitting president. No one doubts that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin in order to boost his reelection chances. It worked. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Goldwater "supported it." He certainly did not support that kind of lying.

::: Goldwater was adopted by the conservative movement for just a few years around 1964. Reagan was not adopted by the movement until 1976, and even then only temporarily, until a more permanent relationship began when Reagan ran a conservative campaign in 1980.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Johnson actually thought the US was being attacked. And indeed the North Vietnamese were making plans for systematic attacks on US Marines in South Vietnam. But it made little difference in the election, which is the point here. The draft Goldwater movement began in 1959 -- I remember talking to Clarence Manion about it at the time. the goal was to find a leader who could win the presidential nomination and Goldwater was by far the most available leader. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::: Maybe if you believe McNamara and Rusk's assertions. What's clear is that Johnson had been ''provoking'' an attack for some time, hoping for just such a retaliation, real or imagined. Whether the attack was real or not, he had been pushing for one which would all but ensure his reelection, and presenting the attack as unprovoked was a singular act of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:44, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::I think it's a left-wing view that the Communist attack was faked or provoked. Fact is the Communists had decided long before to overthrow the US ally by force, and both LBJ and Goldwater strongly opposed them and wanted to use the US military to stop it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:47, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::Of course the North Vietnamese wanted to overthrow the South. That's patently obvious and quite beside the point. Johnson wanted an clear attack against ''American'' forces which would allow him to escalate operations and give him political capital. The left-wing view is that Johnson was convinced the attacks were real and was forced by necessity, thus absolving him of blame or responsibility. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::No. Better read the biography by Dallek (2004):
:::"George Ball and Senator J. William Fulbright later said that the stepped up operations in July and August were meant to provoke Hanoi into a response that would allow the United States to begin air attacks on North Vietnam. Fulbright, in fact, held this view at the time of the attack. In a telephone conversation on the morning of August 3, Fulbright told Ball
that “he was a little suspicious and thought probably that the incident was asked for.”
:::"But McNamara and Bundy dispute that. MacNamara told his biographer Deborah Shapley: “I don't believe that the president, or I, or Dean Rusk, or Mac Bundy were planning, in the sense of anticipating or embarking upon ‘overt war’ with North Vietnam in 1964. I know that the president didn't intend ‘overt war’ and I didn't intend ‘overt war’ in 1964. Johnson didn't have plans for military action other than to continue on as we were.” Likewise, Bundy told Shapley, Johnson “didn't want to take decisions on this issue in an election year.”
:::"Johnson's response to the August 2 attack in the Gulf bears out the MacNamara and Bundy assertions. Though Johnson was determined to show Hanoi that the United States would not be intimidated, his initial impulse was to play down the incident and keep it from escalating into a confrontation that would agitate unwanted questions about military action during the presidential campaign." [end of Dallek quote] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::: I have read Dallek's biog., and have it 3 feet from me on my shelf. He routinely interprets equivocal evidence in Johnson's favor, not surprising given the standard biographer's bias, and Dallek's firm emplacement in the post-revisionist historiographical school. Yet even he notes that it was deceitful to the public. Note page 179 (presuming you have the single-volume version): "At the same time Johnson authorized air strikes against North Vietnam and won an endorsement from Congress over an incident he knew was in doubt, he also misled the public about American actions in the gulf. In describing Hanoi's attacks as deliberate, unprovoked aggression, he was conveniently omitting the 34-A operations, which CIA director McCone had told him were the basis of North Vietnam's attacks." [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barry Goldwater

2009-01-15T18:25:55Z

RodWeathers: /* Why was this deleted? */

::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::Perhaps he should not be in the category libertarianism in which I placed his page. He may not have self-identified, but he had many more libertarian views (and even some pro-abortion ones, which many libertarians disagree with, myself included) than many of self-identified libertarians do. As such, he was a major influence that both the conservative movement and the libertarian philosophy should respect. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 18:24, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== Why was this deleted? ==

"Goldwater was defeated in 1964 after Democrat [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] used the fabricated [[Gulf of Tonkin]] incident to boost his reelection." It's factual and enlightening. Also, I wouldn't describe Goldwater as losing the leadership of the conservative movement. The movement adopted him, not vice-versa.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:Exactly. In point of fact, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Bill Bennett, George Deukmajian and Newt Gingrich all claimed to be carrying on Goldwater's fight and always credited him as being the titular conservative leader while he was alive. Goldwater was adopted as its leader just prior to the 1964 Republican Convention, due to his strong opposition to the Eastern, liberal wing, under Nelson Rockefeller's domination. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:03, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::The Gulf of Tonkin business had very little to do with the election (and Goldwater supported it); it misleads the readers about Goldwater's problem. He did lose the leadership of the movement, as the followers shifted to Reagan, and Goldwater seems to have lost interest in the national movement. There was no doubt whatever in 1960, 1961 and 1962 and 1963 that he was the #1 conservative leader by far--the "just prior" suggestion is flat wrong. While others acknowledged Barry's role, they did not call him their leader after 1964. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: Being attacked by a foreign nation provides a HUGE boost in popularity to a sitting president. No one doubts that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin in order to boost his reelection chances. It worked. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Goldwater "supported it." He certainly did not support that kind of lying.

::: Goldwater was adopted by the conservative movement for just a few years around 1964. Reagan was not adopted by the movement until 1976, and even then only temporarily, until a more permanent relationship began when Reagan ran a conservative campaign in 1980.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Johnson actually thought the US was being attacked. And indeed the North Vietnamese were making plans for systematic attacks on US Marines in South Vietnam. But it made little difference in the election, which is the point here. The draft Goldwater movement began in 1959 -- I remember talking to Clarence Manion about it at the time. the goal was to find a leader who could win the presidential nomination and Goldwater was by far the most available leader. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::: Maybe if you believe McNamara and Rusk's assertions. What's clear is that Johnson had been ''provoking'' an attack for some time, hoping for just such a retaliation, real or imagined. Whether the attack was real or not, he had been pushing for one which would all but ensure his reelection, and presenting the attack as unprovoked was a singular act of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:44, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::I think it's a left-wing view that the Communist attack was faked or provoked. Fact is the Communists had decided long before to overthrow the US ally by force, and both LBJ and Goldwater strongly opposed them and wanted to use the US military to stop it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:47, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::Of course the North Vietnamese wanted to overthrow the South. That's patently obvious and quite beside the point. Johnson wanted an clear attack against ''American'' forces which would allow him to escalate operations and give him political capital. The left-wing view is that Johnson was convinced the attacks were real and was forced by necessity, thus absolving him of blame or responsibility. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::No. Better read the biography by Dallek (2004):
:::"George Ball and Senator J. William Fulbright later said that the stepped up operations in July and August were meant to provoke Hanoi into a response that would allow the United States to begin air attacks on North Vietnam. Fulbright, in fact, held this view at the time of the attack. In a telephone conversation on the morning of August 3, Fulbright told Ball
that “he was a little suspicious and thought probably that the incident was asked for.”
:::"But McNamara and Bundy dispute that. MacNamara told his biographer Deborah Shapley: “I don't believe that the president, or I, or Dean Rusk, or Mac Bundy were planning, in the sense of anticipating or embarking upon ‘overt war’ with North Vietnam in 1964. I know that the president didn't intend ‘overt war’ and I didn't intend ‘overt war’ in 1964. Johnson didn't have plans for military action other than to continue on as we were.” Likewise, Bundy told Shapley, Johnson “didn't want to take decisions on this issue in an election year.”
:::"Johnson's response to the August 2 attack in the Gulf bears out the MacNamara and Bundy assertions. Though Johnson was determined to show Hanoi that the United States would not be intimidated, his initial impulse was to play down the incident and keep it from escalating into a confrontation that would agitate unwanted questions about military action during the presidential campaign." [end of Dallek quote] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::: I have read Dallek's biog., and have it 3 feet from me on my shelf. He routinely interprets equivocal evidence in Johnson's favor, not surprising given the standard biographer's bias, and Dallek's firm emplacement in the post-revisionist historiographical school. Note page 179 (presuming you have the single-volume version): "At the same time Johnson authorized air strikes against North Vietnam and won an endorsement from Congress over an incident he knew was in doubt, he also misled the public about American actions in the gulf. In describing Hanoi's attacks as deliberate, unprovoked aggression, he was conveniently omitting the 34-A operations, which CIA director McCone had told him were the basis of North Vietnam's attacks." [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barry Goldwater

2009-01-15T18:25:39Z

RodWeathers: /* Why was this deleted? */

::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::Perhaps he should not be in the category libertarianism in which I placed his page. He may not have self-identified, but he had many more libertarian views (and even some pro-abortion ones, which many libertarians disagree with, myself included) than many of self-identified libertarians do. As such, he was a major influence that both the conservative movement and the libertarian philosophy should respect. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 18:24, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== Why was this deleted? ==

"Goldwater was defeated in 1964 after Democrat [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] used the fabricated [[Gulf of Tonkin]] incident to boost his reelection." It's factual and enlightening. Also, I wouldn't describe Goldwater as losing the leadership of the conservative movement. The movement adopted him, not vice-versa.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:Exactly. In point of fact, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Bill Bennett, George Deukmajian and Newt Gingrich all claimed to be carrying on Goldwater's fight and always credited him as being the titular conservative leader while he was alive. Goldwater was adopted as its leader just prior to the 1964 Republican Convention, due to his strong opposition to the Eastern, liberal wing, under Nelson Rockefeller's domination. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:03, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::The Gulf of Tonkin business had very little to do with the election (and Goldwater supported it); it misleads the readers about Goldwater's problem. He did lose the leadership of the movement, as the followers shifted to Reagan, and Goldwater seems to have lost interest in the national movement. There was no doubt whatever in 1960, 1961 and 1962 and 1963 that he was the #1 conservative leader by far--the "just prior" suggestion is flat wrong. While others acknowledged Barry's role, they did not call him their leader after 1964. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: Being attacked by a foreign nation provides a HUGE boost in popularity to a sitting president. No one doubts that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin in order to boost his reelection chances. It worked. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Goldwater "supported it." He certainly did not support that kind of lying.

::: Goldwater was adopted by the conservative movement for just a few years around 1964. Reagan was not adopted by the movement until 1976, and even then only temporarily, until a more permanent relationship began when Reagan ran a conservative campaign in 1980.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Johnson actually thought the US was being attacked. And indeed the North Vietnamese were making plans for systematic attacks on US Marines in South Vietnam. But it made little difference in the election, which is the point here. The draft Goldwater movement began in 1959 -- I remember talking to Clarence Manion about it at the time. the goal was to find a leader who could win the presidential nomination and Goldwater was by far the most available leader. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::: Maybe if you believe McNamara and Rusk's assertions. What's clear is that Johnson had been ''provoking'' an attack for some time, hoping for just such a retaliation, real or imagined. Whether the attack was real or not, he had been pushing for one which would all but ensure his reelection, and presenting the attack as unprovoked was a singular act of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:44, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::I think it's a left-wing view that the Communist attack was faked or provoked. Fact is the Communists had decided long before to overthrow the US ally by force, and both LBJ and Goldwater strongly opposed them and wanted to use the US military to stop it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:47, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::Of course the North Vietnamese wanted to overthrow the South. That's patently obvious and quite beside the point. Johnson wanted an clear attack against ''American'' forces which would allow him to escalate operations and give him political capital. The left-wing view is that Johnson was convinced the attacks were real and was forced by necessity, thus absolving him of blame or responsibility. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::No. Better read the biography by Dallek (2004):
:::"George Ball and Senator J. William Fulbright later said that the stepped up operations in July and August were meant to provoke Hanoi into a response that would allow the United States to begin air attacks on North Vietnam. Fulbright, in fact, held this view at the time of the attack. In a telephone conversation on the morning of August 3, Fulbright told Ball
that “he was a little suspicious and thought probably that the incident was asked for.”
:::"But McNamara and Bundy dispute that. MacNamara told his biographer Deborah Shapley: “I don't believe that the president, or I, or Dean Rusk, or Mac Bundy were planning, in the sense of anticipating or embarking upon ‘overt war’ with North Vietnam in 1964. I know that the president didn't intend ‘overt war’ and I didn't intend ‘overt war’ in 1964. Johnson didn't have plans for military action other than to continue on as we were.” Likewise, Bundy told Shapley, Johnson “didn't want to take decisions on this issue in an election year.”
:::"Johnson's response to the August 2 attack in the Gulf bears out the MacNamara and Bundy assertions. Though Johnson was determined to show Hanoi that the United States would not be intimidated, his initial impulse was to play down the incident and keep it from escalating into a confrontation that would agitate unwanted questions about military action during the presidential campaign." [end of Dallek quote] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:03, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::: I have read Dallek biog., and have it 3 feet from me on my shelf. He routinely interprets equivocal evidence in Johnson's favor, not surprising given the standard biographer's bias, and Dallek's firm emplacement in the post-revisionist historiographical school. Note page 179 (presuming you have the single-volume version): "At the same time Johnson authorized air strikes against North Vietnam and won an endorsement from Congress over an incident he knew was in doubt, he also misled the public about American actions in the gulf. In describing Hanoi's attacks as deliberate, unprovoked aggression, he was conveniently omitting the 34-A operations, which CIA director McCone had told him were the basis of North Vietnam's attacks." [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:25, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barry Goldwater

2009-01-15T17:58:51Z

RodWeathers: /* Why was this deleted? */

Talk:Barry Goldwater

2009-01-15T17:57:45Z

RodWeathers: /* Why was this deleted? */

::{{template|Part of this article was copied from [[Citizendium]] and [[Wikipedia]] but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.||category=Copied Articles}} [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== [[Barry Goldwater]] ==

I see some recent stretching to include people like Goldwater as libertarians. You are too good a historian to muddle the waters with throw-away lines such as "many of his later views were libertarian". Yes? So? Many of his views would, today, be considered near leftist as well. ''Historians need to resist revisionism''. In his time, by his own definition, Goldwater rejected libertarianism, and self-branded himself a conservative. Goldwater did not believe in abortion as a substitute for abstaining or birth control, nor did he support "abortion on demand". Many views held by even Ted Kennedy could be considered "conservative", but that hardly gives license to brand him one, or make the statement "some of his views are conservative", that would be misleading, IMO. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 16:55, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:well I knew Goldater personally since 1958 and followed his career very closely. After 1980 or so he was libertarian on most social issues, while remaining conservative on defense and spending issues. In his heyday as a conservative leader (1960-64) he rarely mentioned social issues and they were seldom on the agenda. Here is what Bill Buckley said of Goldwater:
<blockquote>
''Conspicuous here was his defense of Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. Most followers of the senator were surprised, and abashed, especially at his defense of abortion.''[http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/wfb200412101327.asp from National RreviewDec10, 2004]</blockquote>
[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:01, 5 December 2008 (EST)

::*Ditto for me. My family were neighbors at the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach, CA, for several decades. But this is straw snatching, trying to paint the man as a libertarian, by a few high-profile pronouncements later in life, to somehow add cred to the libertarian cause. Find your own hero's, but kindly do not snatch our conservative ones! I do not disagree with showing, with cites, his later libertarian views (many of which I agreed with), but putting him, and others, with the help of another libertarian editor, into the libertarian category, and implying some "conversion" isn't being honest. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 17:19, 5 December 2008 (EST)
::Conversion? well, I think Barry was always a libertarian but only became outspoken about it in the 1980s when social issues got high on the political agenda. When he was a leader of the conservative movement (1958-64) he rarely mentioned social issues of any kind--he never mentioned abortion, for example. (he did mention gays in 1964 in the Walter Jenkins scandal--a top LBJ aide was arrested during the election campaign-- but did not condemn it.) His libertarianism after 1980 was not a "few" statements it was his high profile fight to get O'Connor on the Supreme Court. He was at that time a very powerful Senator and his views are quite important. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 17:42, 5 December 2008 (EST)
:::Perhaps he should not be in the category libertarianism in which I placed his page. He may not have self-identified, but he had many more libertarian views (and even some pro-abortion ones, which many libertarians disagree with, myself included) than many of self-identified libertarians do. As such, he was a major influence that both the conservative movement and the libertarian philosophy should respect. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 18:24, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== Why was this deleted? ==

"Goldwater was defeated in 1964 after Democrat [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] used the fabricated [[Gulf of Tonkin]] incident to boost his reelection." It's factual and enlightening. Also, I wouldn't describe Goldwater as losing the leadership of the conservative movement. The movement adopted him, not vice-versa.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:57, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:Exactly. In point of fact, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, Bill Bennett, George Deukmajian and Newt Gingrich all claimed to be carrying on Goldwater's fight and always credited him as being the titular conservative leader while he was alive. Goldwater was adopted as its leader just prior to the 1964 Republican Convention, due to his strong opposition to the Eastern, liberal wing, under Nelson Rockefeller's domination. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:03, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::The Gulf of Tonkin business had very little to do with the election (and Goldwater supported it); it misleads the readers about Goldwater's problem. He did lose the leadership of the movement, as the followers shifted to Reagan, and Goldwater seems to have lost interest in the national movement. There was no doubt whatever in 1960, 1961 and 1962 and 1963 that he was the #1 conservative leader by far--the "just prior" suggestion is flat wrong. While others acknowledged Barry's role, they did not call him their leader after 1964. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:13, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: Being attacked by a foreign nation provides a HUGE boost in popularity to a sitting president. No one doubts that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin in order to boost his reelection chances. It worked. I'm not sure what you mean by saying Goldwater "supported it." He certainly did not support that kind of lying.

::: Goldwater was adopted by the conservative movement for just a few years around 1964. Reagan was not adopted by the movement until 1976, and even then only temporarily, until a more permanent relationship began when Reagan ran a conservative campaign in 1980.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 14 January 2009 (EST)
::::Johnson actually thought the US was being attacked. And indeed the North Vietnamese were making plans for systematic attacks on US Marines in South Vietnam. But it made little difference in the election, which is the point here. The draft Goldwater movement began in 1959 -- I remember talking to Clarence Manion about it at the time. the goal was to find a leader who could win the presidential nomination and Goldwater was by far the most available leader. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:34, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::: Maybe if you believe McNamara and Rusk's assertions. What's clear is that Johnson had been ''provoking'' an attack for some time, hoping for just such a retaliation, real or imagined. Whether the attack was real or not, he had been pushing for one which would all but ensure his reelection, and presenting the attack as unprovoked was a singular act of deceit. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:44, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::I think it's a left-wing view that the Communist attack was faked or provoked. Fact is the Communists had decided long before to overthrow the US ally by force, and both LBJ and Goldwater strongly opposed them and wanted to use the US military to stop it. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 12:47, 15 January 2009 (EST)
::::Of course the North Vietnamese wanted to overthrow the South. That's patently obvious and quite beside the point. Johnson wanted an clear attack against ''American'' forces which would allow him to escalate operations and give him political capital. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:57, 15 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Barry Goldwater

2009-01-15T17:44:30Z

RodWeathers: /* Why was this deleted? */

Activist judge

2009-01-15T17:14:22Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 610943 by W00kie1981 (Talk) Undo vand.

An '''activist judge''' is one who engages in [[judicial activism]], forsaking the proper role of the judiciary in favor of advancing a particular (typically liberal) political agenda.

==Conservative Activism==
While some have decried the actions of conservative judges as "activism," these accusations are largely unwarranted. Typically, rulings by conservative judges simply correct liberal activism. In fact, by definition, a genuinely [[conservative]] judge will not engage in activism, as he will have a proper understanding of and respect for the role of the judiciary as envisioned by the [[Founding Fathers]]. By definition, then, any consistently activist judge is engaging in a [[liberal]] interpretation of this role.

==Sitting Activist Judges==
While [[judicial activism]] is a pervasive problem, certain judges have gone beyond the pale in pushing a [[liberal agenda]] on the American public.

*[[Stephen Breyer]]
*[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]
*[[John E. Jones III]]
*[[David Souter]]
*[[John Paul Stevens]]

[[Category:judges]]

Impeachment and removal

2009-01-15T17:08:01Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 610936 by W00kie1981 (Talk) Liberal spin

'''Impeachment and removal''' are the two steps in taking a high government official, such as a president or a judge, from his position. It is typically used in cases of [[malfeasance]] (see also [[recall election]]).

The first step, ''impeachment'', is a formal accusation by a simple majority of the House. This vote leaves the accused in office, while he is "tried" by the Senate. A two-thirds majority there results in removal from office.

Sixteen federal officials have been impeached (i.e., charged) by the
House of Representatives, but the Senate has removed (i.e., convicted) only seven. [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764613.html]

The [[United States House of Representatives]] has "sole power of impeachment." The House has to vote on articles of impeachment. If they pass by a majority, the President is not yet removed from office, until (and unless) the next step is completed.

The impeachment case is sent to the [[United States Senate]] for trial. If the Senate votes by a two-thirds majority to convict, then the person will be removed from office.

In impeachment cases against the [[President of the United States|President]], the Chief Justice of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] shall preside.

==Impeachment in 19th Century America==

By 1804, Jeffersonian [[Democratic-Republicans]] had control of [[Congress]] and set their sights on removing Federalist Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. The House of Representatives impeached him, and trial began with the Senate as the jury. His prosecutor was [[John Randolph]], a partisan Jeffersonian who was distantly related to the Federalist Chief Justice [[John Marshall]]. 25 out of 34 Senators were Jeffersonians, so conviction and removal of the Federalist Chase for his political biases seemed likely.

But the effort failed. During the trial Randolph himself criticized Jefferson over a separate issue, the infamous [[Yazoo land fraud]] in [[Georgia]], an issue that split Jeffersonians. Meanwhile, the case against Chase amounted to little more than some intemperate remarks he made while sitting as trial judge in a grand jury proceeding. The Senators were unimpressed, and at most 19/34 voted to convict on any of the charges, far short of the requisite 2/3rd.
The independence of the judiciary was established by this failed effort to remove a Supreme Court justice. However, the episode did encourage future justices not to engage directly in politics. No effort to impeach a Supreme Court justice has since made any progress.

==Andrew Johnson==

After the [[Civil War]], President Andrew Johnson became the enemy of Radical Republicans who controlled Congress. President Johnson vetoed their legislation and even called their leaders "traitors". Flush from winning the war, the likes of Republican Senators Thaddeus Stevens (PA) and Charles Sumner (MA) were not about to back down. Sumner, after all, was the fellow who once delivered an unconscionably disrespectful speech against elderly South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, whereupon his outraged nephew [[Preston Brooks]] beat Sumner senseless with a cane.

When the House of Representatives impeached President Johnson by an overwhelming vote of 126 to 47, his ouster appeared to be a fait accompli. President Johnson had violated the Tenure in Office Act by dismissing his Secretary of War, and he had been intemperate in his name-calling of key senators. In addressing the jury of 54 senators, the prosecutor referred to President Johnson as an "accidental Chief" and "the elect of an assassin." Witnesses testified for both the prosecution and the defense.

The prosecutors – called “managers” in impeachment trials – were confident of victory. Manager Thaddeus Stevens described President Johnson as the "wretched man, standing at bay, surrounded by a cordon of living men, each with the axe of an executioner uplifted for his just punishment." Manager John Bingham brought the public galleries to their feet with his oratory: "May God forbid that the future historian shall record of this day's proceedings, that by reason of the failure of the legislative power of the people to triumph over the usurpations of an apostate President, the fabric of American empire fell and perished from the earth."

2/3rd vote was necessary for conviction, and it all turned on Senator [[Edmund Ross]] of Kansas. Like real jurors, he spoke to no one during the proceedings and no one knew which was he was leaning. But he voted "not guilty," and President Johnson was acquitted by one vote. The Radical Republicans were defeated, and never again enjoyed their unprecedented power.

==Impeachment in recent history==

In 1974, no impeachment proceedings had occurred since the Johnson trial over a hundred years earlier). Most Americans thought of impeachment as something quaint and bizarre in the history books.

In the House of Representatives decided to begin impeachment proceedings against [[Richard M. Nixon]], on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the Watergate affair. At the time, congressmen and their staffs were unfamiliar with the law and proceedings involved with impeachment, and needed to research the question.

On July 27, 1974 the Committee on the Judiciary voted to recommend three articles of impeachment. The articles concerned his obstruction of justice during the Watergate investigations. Before his near-certain impeachment and conviction could occur, Nixon resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974. Thus, Nixon was never actually impeached.

==Bill Clinton==

President [[Bill Clinton]] was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, on charges of [[perjury]] and [[obstruction of justice]] relating to testimony he had given in a [[civil lawsuit]] a former Arkansas government employee had brought for [[sexual harassment]]. He was acquitted by the Senate on February 12, 1999 on a party-line vote.

President Clinton was doing well in the polls and ready to pick his successor for the White House by late 1998. His leadership enabled the Democratic Party to do surprisingly well in the mid-term elections, and President Clinton was seeking to leave a lasting legacy.

The House of Representatives impeached him for making false statements under oath, which is perjury, and trial was scheduled for the Senate in 1999. First Lady Hillary Clinton accused her opponents of being part of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband. The Democratic Senators all lined up behind President Clinton, promising to vote for acquittal.

Republicans enjoyed a majority in the Senate but lacked votes anywhere close to the requisite 2/3rd majority to convict. President Clinton was a lame-duck at that point anyway, and the real battle was over his ability to influence politics beyond his term.

The managers of the impeachment presented their case, but the Senate prevented them from calling key witnesses such as Clinton’s closest aids. The procedural rules hamstrung the trial and served to protect the president. Without the presentation of the full case, President Clinton easily survived the final vote.

But the victory was Pyrrhic. The Democratic presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, felt he had to distance himself from Clinton and that probably made the difference on Election Day. Since then, Clinton has had little success in campaigning for candidates, failing with Governor Gray Davis in California in the recall. Hillary Clinton, pollsters choice to run in 2004, apparently felt it was too soon to make an attempt. The political ramifications of the impeachment trial continue.

==Popular usage==

In colloquial English, speakers frequently fail to distinguish between the accusation by the House, and the (possible) subsequent removal by the Senate. Thus when someone says, "That official was impeached," you may not know whether they meant ''charged but not convicted'' or ''removed from office''.

Two US presidents have been ''impeached'' but neither was removed from office.

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Zionism

2009-01-15T17:00:02Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 610929 by W00kie1981 (Talk) Do not remove material without reason

Zionism originally referred to a nationalist political movement dedicated to reestablishing the [[Israel|Jewish state]] in the land of Israel, which at the time was part of the British Mandate of [[Palestine]]; since this movement realised its aim in 1948 the term now connotes political support for the continued existence of this Jewish State. Although Jews have been returning to their homeland throughout the last two thousand years, the movement in its modern guise was started in the late nineteenth century by [[Theodor Herzl]], and in 1948 the modern state of [[Israel]] was established on a piece of land granted by the [[United Nations]] with the support of [[Great Britain]], the nation which had formerly controlled the land under a [[League of Nations]] mandate.

==Opposition to Zionism==

The [[Palestinian Arabs]], many of whom fled during the unrest that followed the reestablishment of the Israeli state are among those opposed to its existence, as are many other [[Arabs]] who are allied with them. A very small minority of religious Jews, most prominently the [[Neturei Karta]] sect, are [[Anti-zionism|anti-Zionist]] for theological reasons. Zionism was formerly opposed by some European Jews who feared that the creation of a Jewish state would cause them to lose their influence (such as ownership of newspapers and real estate), as such control could not be exercised if many Jews migrated from Europe to Israel. Opposition also comes from some claiming to be "[[racist|anti-racists]]", saying that they oppose Zionism's promotion of Jewish national identity.

Zionism is also opposed by those who believe that pro-Israeli interest groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have an excessive amount of influence over US policy, although many who are opposed to the Israel Lobby have a problem with the power of interest groups and lobbying organizations in general, not just the Israel Lobby.

In the often tendentious debates over the Arab-Israeli question many of these so called "anti-Zionists" claim that there is a distinction between opposition to Israel and [[Anti-Semitism]]. In practice, however, outside of a very small minority of Orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism for religious reasons, anti-Zionism almost always goes hand in hand with anti-Semitism.

==List of Christian Zionists==
* Sir Henry Finch (1558-1625) <ref> [http://www.rhs.ac.uk/bibl/wwwopac.exe?&database=dcatalo&rf=000187713&SUCCESS=false&SRT2=ti&SEQ2=ascending RHS Bibliography] </ref>
* Lewis Way (1772-1840) <ref> [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=61&letter=W Jewish Enclyclopedia.com] </ref>
* John Nelson Darby (1800 - 1882)
* Anthony Ashley Cooper (1801 - 1885) <ref>[http://www.answers.com/topic/anthony-ashley-cooper-7th-earl-of-shaftesbury answers.com] </ref>

{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Yasser Arafat]]
*[[Menachem Begin]]

== Links ==

*[http://www.zionism-israel.com/ Zionism and Israel Information Center]
*[http://www.mideastweb.org/zionism.htm Zionism and the Creation of Israel]

[[category:politics]]
[[Category:Israel]]

Watergate

2009-01-15T16:59:25Z

RodWeathers: Undo revision 610930 by W00kie1981 (Talk) Undo liberal spin

The '''Watergate Affair''' was a political scandal leading to [[President of the United States|President]] [[Richard Nixon|Richard M. Nixon's]] resignation. It began when members of the campaign to reelect Richard Nixon broke into the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] National Committee headquarters in the [[Watergate Hotel]] during the 1972 presidential election campaign. Nixon had no prior knowledge of the burglary plans, nor gave consent to the escapade, yet his loyalty to subordinates led to Nixon consenting to cover up activities and transferring money from the Presidential election campaign fund to pay for the legal defense of those who were involved. Nixon resigned when it became clear he had lost support within his own party and [[Congress]], which had Democratic majorities in both branches, was likely to [[impeach]] him for [[obstruction of justice]].

==The Watergate Break-In==
On June 17, 1972, five men were caught breaking into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate complex in [[Washington, D.C.]] The burglars included [[James W. McCord]], a former [[CIA]] employee, and several [[Cuba|Cuban]] expatriates with ties to the CIA. The subsequent investigation of the break-in revealed that the intruders were acting on behalf of the [[Committee to Reelect the President]] (also known as CRP or CREEP). They, along with accomplices [[E. Howard Hunt]] and [[G. Gordon Liddy]], were convicted of burglary and wiretapping in Jan. 1973.

==From Burglary to Political Scandal==
Evidence that emerged at the burglary trial suggested that the break-in had the approval of higher-level government officials who were attempting to cover up their involvement. This possibility was aggressively pursued by investigative reporters in the print [[media]], with [[Washington Post]] reporters [[Carl Bernstein]] and [[Bob Woodward]] playing particularly critical roles. Woodward and Bernstein, as well as others, discovered evidence that the break-in was only part of a wider effort of political "dirty tricks" designed to discredit Democratic candidates. They also uncovered the existence of a secret [[slush fund]] used to finance these activities<ref>Bernstein, Carl and Woodward, Bob. ''All The President's Men''</ref>.

==Senate Investigation==
In April 1973, with a [[Senate]] investigation underway, several top Nixon aides, including [[H. R. Haldeman]] and [[John D. Ehrlichman]], resigned over the scandal, and White House counsel John Dean III was fired. Dean subsequently testified during televised hearings beginning in May, exposing Nixon's participation in the Watergate cover-up and massive illegalities in Republican fundraising in 1972.

The hearings also revealed that since 1971 Nixon had recorded conversations and telephone calls in his office. The president, however, refused to turn the tapes over to the Senate Watergate committee, citing executive privilege. In Oct. 1973 Nixon ordered [[Elliot Richardson]], the attorney general, to fire [[Archibald Cox]], the special prosecutor who had subpoenaed the tapes, but Richardson chose to resign instead. Richardson's assistant, William Ruckelshaus, also refused to fire Cox and was himself fired. Finally, it was the solicitor general, Robert Bork, who fired Cox. The incident, which became known as the "[[Saturday Night Massacre]]," led to widespread calls for Nixon's [[impeach|impeachment]].

The White House released edited transcripts of the tapes in April 1974, and eventually the tapes themselves, after the Supreme Court rejected Nixon's claim to executive privilege. But the damage was done; President Nixon's behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—and the erosion of the public's confidence in his administration, led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power.

"In all of this," the articles of impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on [[Aug. 9, 1974]].

Nixon was succeeded in office the same day by [[Vice President]] [[Gerald R. Ford]], who a month later issued a full pardon to Nixon for any crimes he might have committed in office, thus eliminating the possibility of future prosecution. A number of other administration officials served time in prison for their offenses, including former attorney general John Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, and Dean, and [[G. Gordon Liddy]], a former FBI agent who helped plan the Watergate break-in.

==The Tapes==
Nixon was caught by a recording system whose installation he had himself ordered. It transpired during the course of the investigation that all conversations in the President's office had been secretly recorded for years for historic purposes.<ref>Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson also made secret recordings: [http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK+Library+and+Museum/News+and+Press/JFK+Library+and+Museum+to+Host+Presidential+Tapes+Conference+in+February.htm JFK Library and Museum to Host Presidential Tapes Conference], JFK Library, February, 2003</ref> During the investigation the White House was forced to release transcripts of Watergate-related tapes. These transcripts showed that at the very least Nixon was participating in near-daily, ongoing discussions of how to manage the spreading Watergate scandal. Many dubious actions, such as the payment of "hush money" to the defendants, were openly discussed and, seemingly, considered.

Tension was heightened when a tape with a key conversation, recorded a week after the burglary, turned out to have an eighteen-minute gap. To date the gap has not been explained, nor has anyone managed to recover the erased material. White House chief Alexander Haig provoked derision by a suggestion that the erasure had been caused by "some sinister force." Nixon's secretary Rose Mary Woods told the press that she could have erased the tape by accident while talking on the phone; when the press asked her to demonstrate, it became clear that this explanation was literally a long stretch.<ref>[http://www.ford.utexas.edu/museum/exhibits/watergate_files/content.php?section=3&page=a&zoom=2 Rosemary Woods demonstrating how she may have erased tape recordings].</ref> Later analysis by acoustics firm Bolt, Baranek and Newman concluded that the gap was the result of at least five separate erasures; since the tape recorder had a two-button interlock to prevent accidental erasure, the conclusion was that it must have been a deliberate action.<ref>[http://foi.missouri.edu/destructiondocs/natarchives.html National Archives Has Given Up on Filling the Nixon Tape Gap], New York Times, 2003</ref>

==David Frost interview==
In 1977, Nixon had an interview with British journalist David Frost. The event is recounted in Peter Morgan's play [[Frost/Nixon]]

==Notes and references==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[Carl Bernstein]]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:United States History]]
[[Category:Scandals]]

Talk:Gun control

2009-01-15T03:58:32Z

RodWeathers: /* What is the conservative position on gun control? */

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.
::::::::: You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to ''discuss'' them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as ''you'' have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be ''against'' abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

:::::::::: Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. [[Thomas the Apostle]], for example, believed in [[Jesus]] based on materialism, not despite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

:: The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::: RodWeathers, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that Andy did.
::::: Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do ''not'' allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (''almost'' a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: I'm curious, however. If YEC is materialistic, and bigbang+evolution is explicitly so, is there any non-materialistic origins theory? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:58, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to...... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2009-01-15T03:55:47Z

RodWeathers: /* What is the conservative position on gun control? */ Indents added to clear it up

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.
::::::::: You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to ''discuss'' them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as ''you'' have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be ''against'' abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

:::::::::: Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. [[Thomas the Apostle]], for example, believed in [[Jesus]] based on materialism, not despite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

:: The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::: RodWeathers, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that Andy did.
::::: Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do ''not'' allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (''almost'' a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to...... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Gun control

2009-01-15T03:53:46Z

RodWeathers:

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::: Your claims about YECs voting for Obama are nothing more than assumptions based on simple averages, and you've completely sidestepped the point about YECs and materialists being completely incompatible.
::::::::: You are incorrect to claim that I am unwilling to state my other political positions, given that I have already stated a number of them. It is not my intention to ''discuss'' them here, as this is a page about gun control. But as ''you'' have brought them up, I will state them. First, I fail to see how a person who favours taxpayer-funded abortion can be ''against'' abortion. But here are my positions on the things that you question: I am opposed to abortion in all cases except where a choice has to be made between the life of the baby and the life of the mother. And yes, I favour prohibiting it. I favour lowering taxes. I support more free enterprise and less government. I oppose same-sex "marriage". Given that I agree with you on all those points, there should be no need to discuss them further, and I would hope that you will now acknowledge that I am no "liberal". Or will you instead ask further questions, trying to find something else to justify your opinion of me?
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::: Your conservative positions on those issues are welcome, but the rest of your posting is flawed. Many politicians do state they are against abortion, yet vote for taxpayer-funded abortion. I'm sure you have many in Australia who do that, and I wonder if you vote for them based on what they say.

:::::::::: Your claim that YECs and materialists are "completely incompatible" is illogical, and you haven't explained the incompatibility. As I said (and you didn't address), belief in an occasional divine intervention does not necessarily negate one's adherence to materialism otherwise. [[Thomas the Apostle]], for example, believed in [[Jesus]] based on materialism, not despite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:46, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: Just look at polling data and you'll see that millions of YECs are liberal and voted for Obama. You have free will to deny it, but it's as indisputable as 2+2=4.

:: The claim that YEC and materialism are "mutually exclusive" is likewise absurd. Divine intervention at the beginning (or otherwise) does not detract from materialism afterward. The polling data show that many YECs are very materialistic in their outlook, as are even more non-YECs. --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:: I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: Materialism is the overemphasis on matter rather than principles. "Guns cause crime" is a materialistic falsehood. "Money causes injustice" is another.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:51, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::: RodWeathers, could you please point me to the polls that asked voters if they were YECs or not? Unless you do, I will presume that you are making the same sorts of assumptions that Andy did.
::: Thanks, though, for implicitly acknowledging that YEC and materialistic viewpoints are contradictory by inventing a contrived explanation to claim that they are not. Materialistic views do ''not'' allow for the supernatural at any time. Yes, there are some who believe that God started things off but then left them on their own (''almost'' a "materialism afterward" position), but these people are Deists, not YECs.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:25, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::: That comment about polls is Andy's, not mine, but was missing a sig., which i've added. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 22:53, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to...... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Direct Democracy

2009-01-15T00:02:17Z

RodWeathers: /* Direct democracy in the United States today */

'''Direct democracy''' is a political system. It differs from the [[federal]] and State governments in the [[United States]], which is a republic or a representative democracy. In a direct democracy all citizens who wish to are a part of the government, in that they, generally, make laws, conduct trials and elect or remove officials, though exactly what they do is dependent upon each individual system. [[Athens]] of [[ancient Greece]] was the first direct democracy.

[[Switzerland]] is a direct democracy.

==Direct democracy in the United States today==

Direct democracy is practiced today in those New England towns that have ''open town meetings.''

The phrase "New England town" does not mean merely a town in New England, but refers to a characteristic form of town government. The executive branch is called the ''board of selectman'' and the legislative branch is the ''town meeting.''

Smaller towns usually have ''open town meetings'' at which any citizen can attend and vote. (In Massachusetts, for example, towns with populations of less than 6,000 are required to have open town meetings). Larger towns, however, usually have representative town meetings. Illustrator Norman Rockwell "Freedom of Speech" power, one of his "four freedoms" posters, shows a citizen rising to speak in what is probably an open town meeting.

Some state constitutions, such as [[California]]'s, allow for certain elements of direct democracy, including [[recall|recalls]] and public [[initiatives]] and [[referendum|referendums]].

==External links==
*[http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/powers_of_persuasion/four_freedoms/images_html/save_freedom_speech.html Freedom of Speech], Norman Rockwell poster.
[[category:political Terms]]

Thomas More

2009-01-14T23:54:24Z

RodWeathers:

[[Image:Holbein Portrait of Sir Thomas More.JPG|170px|right]]
'''St. Thomas More''' (Sir Thomas More) (London 1478 - London 1535) was an [[English]] lawyer, author, politician, statesman and leading [[humanist]] scholar. Whilst still very young, he wrote comedies; one of his first works was a translation of a Latin biography of [[Giovanni Pico della Mirandola]]. In 1516 he wrote his most famous work, ''Utopia''. In April, 1534, More refused to swear to the Act of Succession and the Oath of Supremacy, and was committed to the Tower of London on April 17. More was found guilty of treason and was beheaded alongside Bishop Fisher on July 6, 1535. [http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/morebio.htm]

More was beatified in 1886 and canonized by the Catholic Church as a saint in 1935. He was a close friend of [[Desiderius Erasmus|Erasmus]]

Feast day: June 22, July 6.

== Works ==

*Comedies
*English Poems
*The Life of Pico della Mirandola (trans., 1510)
*The History of King Richard the Third (c.1513-1518)
*Utopia (1516)
*The Four Last Things (c. 1522)
*A Dialogue Concerning Tyndale (1529)
*The Confutation of Tyndale's Answer (1532)
*A Dialogue of Comfort Against Tribulation (1535)
*Sadness of Christ (1535)
*Instructions and Prayers (1534-1535)

<center>
''The king's good servant, but God's first''
</center>

== External links ==

*[http://www.luminarium.org/renlit/tmore.htm Sir Thomas More (1478-1535)]

{{DEFAULTSORT:More, Thomas}}
[[Category:Authors]]

Abstinence denial

2009-01-14T23:49:30Z

RodWeathers:

'''Abstinence denial''' refers to two phenomena, deliberate denial of the efficacy of [[abstinence]] in preventing disease by [[liberal]] and [[abortion|pro-abortion]] groups, and denial from [[ignorance]] by those who have been convinced by the propaganda.

== Falsehoods ==
Liberals claim that [[virginity pledge|abstinence pledge campaigns]] are ineffective, despite powerful evidence to the contrary<ref>http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm</ref>

== Motivation ==
Groups such as [[Planned Parenthood]] have enormous interest in promoting sexual promiscuity, as their profits rely on it. Likewise, pharmaceutical groups selling drugs such as [[Gardasil]] and various forms of [[birth control]] cannot profit when abstinence is used.

The liberal [[entertainment]] industry relies on immoral consumers to purchase its products with immoral sexual content (television, film, etc.) Denying abstinence's efficacy is thus part of a wider attack on [[Christian]] morality.

== See also ==
* [[Deceit]]
* [[Abstinence]]

{{liberalism}}

== References ==
<references />

[[category: liberalism]]

Abstinence denier

2009-01-14T23:44:54Z

RodWeathers: Redirecting to Abstinence denial

#REDIRECT [[Abstinence denial]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-14T23:44:23Z

RodWeathers: link

Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. Since the [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] was published in 1611, perhaps a half a million new English words have been developed.

A small percentage of those new words are tremendously powerful. Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1965
|
|-
|American dream
|1911 (OED)<ref>OED refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|bailout
|1951
|The verbal form ''to bail out'' (in a figurative sense, which is meant here) dates from the 1580s. The literal sense is somewhat earlier. <ref>OED, ''bail, v1''</ref>
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine [[charity]] is the best approach;
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|me-too
|1881
|
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated at the [[liberal]] [[University of Madison-Wisconsin]] to enforce liberal orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of liberals.<ref>But see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not *politically correct</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|the second most recent entry; a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|5
|-
|1700s
|3
|-
|1800s
|12
|-
|1900s
|16
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|the opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|runaway jury
|
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier?
|
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|[[term limits]]
|
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com includes it with an origin date of 1861[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit]
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer
|
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|}

== New liberal words ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|
|-
|"[[Big Bang theory|Big Bang]]"
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1832
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|[[People are animals|people are animals]]
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1936
|According to some sources, the term originally comes from Chairman Mao
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] without logical meaning
|-
|[[racism]]
|
|If you don't support Barack Obama, you are guilty of....
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics when the truth is exposed about a liberal candidate.
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|[[RADAR|radar]]
|1940
|Acronym of "Radio Detection and Ranging"; inclusion here being challenged on talk page
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Abstinence denial

2009-01-14T23:43:28Z

RodWeathers: small start. this is referenced a lot, so it could use a page

'''Abstinence denial''' refers to two phenomena, deliberate denial of the efficacy of [[abstinence]] in preventing disease by [[liberal]] and [[abortion|pro-abortion]] groups, and denial from [[ignorance]] by those who have been convinced by the propaganda.

== Motivation ==
Groups such as [[Planned Parenthood]] have enormous interest in promoting sexual promiscuity, as their profits rely on it. Likewise, pharmaceutical groups selling drugs such as [[Gardasil]] and various forms of [[birth control]] cannot profit when abstinence is used.

The liberal [[entertainment]] industry relies on immoral consumers to purchase its products with immoral sexual content (television, film, etc.) Denying abstinence's efficacy is thus part of a wider attack on [[Christian]] morality.

== See also ==
* [[Deceit]]
* [[Abstinence]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category: liberalism]]

Talk:Gun control

2009-01-14T16:35:34Z

RodWeathers: /* What is the conservative position on gun control? */

[[/Archive 1|Archive 1]] (30th December 2008)

== Riddle me this... ==

I read the above discussion ("Reversion of Ed Poor's edit") with interest. I then looked at the section in the article headed "Gun control outside the USA" which regrettably makes no reference to Australia. I then went and looked at the murder rates and rates of gun related death in the US and Australia.

What struck me was that there is a huge difference between the two countries which does not appear to be explained by anything contained within the article.

The homicide rates are: US: 5.7 per 100,000; Australia: 1.28 per 100,000.

The firearm-related homicide rates are: US: 3.72 per 100,000; Australia: 0.44 per 100,000.

It appears from those figures that firearms have a huge input into the high murder rate in the US. About 2/3rds of homicides in the US are by gun. Only about 1/3rd of homicides in Australia are by gun. And why are the homicide rates so different?

I suggest that gun control in Australia does have the effect of lowering the homicide rate. However, I suggest that the figures indicate that it is not the only factor. But what else is at work?

More importantly, the article as it stands is a piece of advocacy against gun control. Any chance of an encyclopedic article? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:12, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I got the above figures from WP. I note that they are not all for the same years. The gun-related death rates are older figures. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:37, 11 December 2008 (EST)

== Australia ==

The recent edits of Aschlafly contain a number of errors, misconceptions and misleading statements.

Australia is not "far more rural" than the US. Australia may have fewer drug problems but I am not sure how exactly you measure the number of "drug problems". It may have always had a lower homicide rate but it has probably also always had a stricter gun control regime. It was not "leftists" that demanded strict gun control after the Port Arthur killings. Indeed it was the very conservative Howard government that introduced the changes. The country did not then move to the left politically but kept Howard in office for 11 years. It is also untrue to link increases in assualts to gun control. Any rises in the assualt rates appear unrelated to gun control. See [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331 here]. Accordingly I have reverted the changes. I would be happy to discuss. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 18:54, 26 December 2008 (EST)

: We've discussed this before. Don't reinsert your liberal bias.

: [[Gun control]] was pushed in Australia by the media, which (surprise, surprise) is [[leftist]]. A decade later, the entire country at virtually every level is (surprise, surprise) controlled by [[leftists]], now that the people rely more on the government for protection. And it is true (surprise, surprise) that assaults increased as a result of stricter [[gun control]].--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:00, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::You've never been to Australila have you? No-one who has *any* knowledge at all of Australian politics links *any* of the elections since 1996 to gun control. And as I said, Howard remained in office for 11 years. Gun control was one of his first major issues as Prime Minister. He is Australia's '''second longest serving Prime Minister'''.

::You clearly didn't look at the page that I referred to from the Australian Bureau of Statistics did you? There is no indication that gun control had any relationship to rates of assault. Take a look. If I am wrong I would be delighted for you to point it out.

::Now, you've told me not to reinsert my "liberal bias". I do not wish to insert any bias into any article. If I am wrong I would certainly not want to place incorrect information in the article. On the other hand, I am sure that if you are wrong you would want me to fix it up.

::Why don't you have a look at the statistics and get back to me. If I don't hear from you I will assume that you want me to correct the article. --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:14, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::: TCochrane, address my points. Yes, newspapers are [[leftist]], yes, they did cause the stricter gun control to pass, and, yes, Australia has moved further left than ever in history as a result. Obviously the shift did not happen immediately, as incumbents enjoy inherent advantages. But the shift did inevitably come, which is why leftists push so hard for irrational gun control.

::: Insist on reinserting your liberal bias and your account will be blocked.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:19, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::How about you address my points?

::::So far as your points go: newspapers are leftist? Some Australian newspapers are. Which ones are you talking about? Did they "cause" the stricter gun control? I would have thought it is hard to substantiate that statement. How do show that newspapers caused a particular political decision? Was it the papers or was it public opinion? Chicken or egg? Tell me how and why you say it was the papers. And which papers.

::::As to your other point, I have already addressed it. No-one who has any knowledge of Australia at all links the current political landscape, 12 years later, to the gun control measures. You're right out there on your own with that one.

::::Now, do you want an accurate article or just a piece of blogging? --[[User:TCochrane|TCochrane]] 19:26, 26 December 2008 (EST)

::::: I support what TCochrane has said above. He's described the Australian situation more accurately than has Aschlafly. Including the reference to Australia being "far more rural" than the U.S. Australia is actually known as being one of the most urbanised countries in the world. Andy needs to support ''his'' claims, because they are either wrong or very selective. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:39, 29 December 2008 (EST)

:::::: I've changed the paragraph about Australia to make it more accurate, per above discussion. I've retained a reference to Australia being different insofar as its drug culture is concerned, as it's true that the drug situation is different, and could well be a factor. I didn't retain the reference to Australia always having a lower homicide rate, as there was no reference supporting it, and because this is possibly because Australia has long had a lower gun-ownership rate anyway. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:50, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::: PhilipJ, you're back censoring truthful information to push a liberal point-of-view about gun control. This isn't Wikipedia, and liberal [[censorship]] is not allowed here. Vandalism isn't allowed here either, and please don't encourage it by restoring vandal-obsessive talk.

::::::: Tell us how Australia's largest cities compare with those in the United States, and how the drug cultures compare.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 18:54, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::: No, Andy, it is ''you'' who is censoring truthful information to push a point of view about gun control. The only restoration I made was to a valid talk post. I did not reinstate an abusive addendum. But as for comparisons with Wikipedia, this incident provides an example of one way in which Conservapedia is, unfortunately, ''like'' Wikipedia. I observed on Wikipedia good editors having their views suppressed and rejected so arrogantly that they got angry and lashed out, giving the administrators the excuse they needed to block the user. Of course they justified it by calling the editors trolls, vandals, or whatever. That is exactly what has happened here on this talk page. You don't want Conservapedia to be like Wikipedia? Then don't follow that approach.
:::::::: Why should I answer your questions when you have not answered questions put to you above?
:::::::: Now, are you going to simply repeat your claims about censorship, or actually provide supporting evidence for your claims?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:23, 29 December 2008 (EST)

::::::::: PhilipJ, I know how liberals love to talk, but my time is better spent making substantive contributions. Don't censor them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:30, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As I expected, repeat the unsupported claims and accusations, but don't actually provide ''substantive'' evidence to back them up. What's the point of Commandment 1 then? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)

Speaking of the drug problem in the U.S. and Australia, it would seem that from numbers alone, there's not a huge difference: [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/sdua04/sdua04.pdf Australia drug use statistics] (relevant info on page 19) and [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/ U.S. drug use]

This shows that 41.7% of Americans older than 12 in 2001 reported ever using illicit drugs, and 12.6% reported use within the last year. In Australia, the figures are 38.1 and 15.3 percent, respectively (though this counts 14 year olds and up rather than 12 year olds and up). Not a huge difference.
Granted, different drugs represent different cultures. A community with marijuana use is probably not going to be as violent as one with methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, etc. use.

But, there's the numbers for those interested. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:07, 29 December 2008 (EST)

: Data on lifetime drug use is almost meaningless. How about crimes related to drug use, especially in big cities?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 19:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: That's why I also included data about "recent" drug use (i.e. in the last year). It's actually a tad higher in Australia. Regarding crimes related to drug use, [http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html#table1 here]'s a source for U.S. statistics. I had a bit more trouble finding the relevant Australian statistics, but [http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdf/$file/Relationship_Drugs_Crime.pdfthis] appears to have some relevant information. There really doesn't seem to be much of a difference in drug use/crime in the U.S. versus that of Australia, but I wouldn't say that definitively until I can find some more statistics. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
: When I've looked into this before, I think I found that there's a big difference in cocaine use between Australia and the U.S. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:35, 29 December 2008 (EST)
:: Well, let's see. Per the source in my first comment, 4.7% in Australia reported ever using cocaine, and 1.0% reported recent use. The problem with the U.S. statistics is that so far I've only managed to find numbers regarding use in the last month, which is 0.7% according to [http://www.cocaineabuse.us/statistics-facts.html this source]. I've got no idea how much past-year use would vary from past-month use. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 19:59, 29 December 2008 (EST)
It strikes me that in this case 'closer' does not necessarily mean 'better'. TCochrane and Philip are too close to the problem they are attempting to explain, and (consciously or unconsciously) are probably influenced by the prevailing Liberal ideology of Australian polity. Although Andy is examining this problem from the United States, this detatchment enables a far more objective judgement to be made than that by our Australian editors. Accusations of 'not having visited Australia' are totally irrelevant in this case. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:04, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I reject that we are ''too'' close, although it's true that one can be a bit more detached and objective from a distance. However, Andy is hardly 'detached', being a strong opposer of gun control. Rather, I'd consider myself far more detached, having taken no real interest in the topic until I saw the nonsense, particularly about Australia, that I encountered here. And although you don't need to visit a country to know a lot about it, it's obvious from Andy's comments about Australia's politics (and his comment about Australia being 'more rural') that he doesn't know as much about the place as even someone who has merely visited, let alone as much as those who live here. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Hang on a moment Philip. Maybe the Aussies are too close to this issue. So I propose a compromise whereby we (I am currently an ex-pat) defer to the US-viewpoint about our country while the American editors defer to UK, Aussie, Kiwi and Japanese observations about the USA as the Americans are obviously far too close to their own issues to be truly objective about them. [[User:Catherine|CA'''†'''HERINE]] 08:24, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::: Heh. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)

PhilipJ, you're not fooling anyone here with your pushing your liberal point-of-view about [[gun control]]. The imposition of strict gun control in Australia converted the country from being somewhat conservative to be being controlled by [[leftists]]. Maybe you prefer that, but there's no denying the effect and you're not going to push your liberal point-of-view by censoring the facts in the entry here. Have you figured out how the city sizes in Australia compare with the U.S. yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 08:54, 30 December 2008 (EST)
: I ''do'' deny the effect. And there's no denying that it's deniable. And I've already said that I'm not answering your questions until you answer the ones you were asked. And I resent you continuing to misrepresent me as favouring "liberal" views. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:36, 30 December 2008 (EST)
::Well, as [http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp Snopes] has blatantly put it, to say crime has increased due to gun control is misleading. (example) ''If 100 people are killed and 10 are due to firearms, that's 10% one year. If 10 people are killed the next year, 5 due to firearms, that's 50%, a 40% increase (in reality, it's halved).'' That's exactly what was [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=576029 being said] above, yet it's so simple to see how horribly wrong some people can use math. Mr. Rayment is right, no amount of misleading deceit or personal attacks can warp the facts.

::This "you're not fooling anyone here", "liberal viewpoint", "pushing liberal POV", or calling someone a liberal to make their argument invalid, is certainly not a way of discussion. Please stop the personal attacks, Aschlafly. It's silly to attack the person rather than the point (that you've yet to support!). You realize that the rules that oppress regular editors can apply to you too, right? Or am I crazy enough to think that Commandment 1 exists only for non-admins? [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 10:28, 30 December 2008 (EST)

::<personal remarks removed> Snopes isn't some unbiased site, you know. It is recognized as being pretty liberal and biased against Christian and Conservative thought. Liberal views are liberal views. <personal remarks removed>. '''''Conserv'''apedia'' is just that. <personal remarks removed> This is an encyclopedia, not some debating club. Contribute substantive content where you can do so, if you really are interested in being a part of this project, <personal remarks removed>. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 15:08, 30 December 2008 (EST)
:::TK, you attack the persons and not the issue at hand. You know nothing of me and yet you brand me as such immediately, so I removed your personal attacks against me and Philip. Removing your attacks makes your reply very much smaller, doesn't it? I don't introduce "rules" as I can't make them, so facts suffice rather well. If you want a better source, how about [http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi2/tandi269t.html The Australian Government] itself? If you look at [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304 World Net Daily], it makes a claim in the headline, but the bullet points don't inquire if the crimes have firearms involved. The statement ''"In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent"'' is the same misleading method I said before, the overall number of deaths declined which makes the percentage of firearm homicide climb. From 1996, to 2003, gun homicides have fallen by almost 50%[http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502]. Now, has ALL crime declined? Of course not, but firearm-related crimes have dropped. They're misleading statistics to push their POV, and I'm afraid you've fallen for their hooplah. Prove me wrong, I'm more than willing to learn from my mistakes and admit it, but the arguments so far have been nothing more than attacks of character. I still see no citation in the article... if any time-wasting is done, its the lack of effort to prove the statement right. As far as I'm concerned, the part of ''Conservapedia'' is the '''-pedia''' part, which pertains to facts. And for what it's worth, I have a small gun collection and support the 2nd Amendment. ^_^
:::I'll start contributing again when and if (doubtful, though) attitudes among users improves to where appreciation, and not unprovoked harassment or attacks is more prevalent. My apologies if removing parts of your post are uncalled for, but the parts removed don't contribute anything to the discussion. [[User:JimJeweler|Jalast Jeweler]] 13:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Can we please address the "far more rural" error? I've looked into this, and USA and Aus have not kept demographic data in the same manner, so it takes a lot of interpretation to arrive at any kind of comparison at all. USA lists population distribution by Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan, and Aus lists distribution by Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote. The percentage of USA's population in Non-Metropolitan areas (which would include but not be exclusively composed of rural areas) is about 10.5%. The percentage of Australia's population in Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote areas is about 12%. Again these areas include rural and non-rural. So there ''could be'' a difference of about 1.5 percentage points. The "far more rural" statement as it stands is misleading and groundless. Regardless, shouldn't the editor who inserted the comparisons (rural/non rural, and drug culture) be the one to substantiate those comparisons, especially as they have been challenged? I am going to modify the "rural" statement for now, pending better data.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 21:31, 7 January 2009 (EST)

: Your statistics are meaningless, because USA cities are much bigger than Australian cities. The slums of Sydney are nothing compared with the slums of Chicago, where homicide rates are much higher.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:28, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::Then talk about population density and be done with it, even comparing the ''urban'' population densities if that is more in keeping with what you are trying to get across. But Australia is '''not''' "far more rural" than USA as the the population distribution (by percentage) is much the same. Australian cities may have fewer people than USA cities, but Australian rural areas have '''far''' fewer people than USA rural areas. Outside of our cities and towns, this is a very empty country as far as human occupation goes. We actually have stations (ranches to you) comparable in size to the state of Texas, generally populated by a family and some workers. I don't understand why you insist on that false statement.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:43, 7 January 2009 (EST)

::: Your rant is bizarre; it only reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the U.S. Taken in the context of crime rates, the "far more rural" description is apt. You have not suggested an improvement.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::::Please don’t be insulting. It was not a rant. I was (and am) quite calm and rational. Maybe the station/Texas comparison in the middle made it a little disjointed, but that is no excuse for calling it bizarre. I was pointing out that Australia’s rural areas are extremely sparsely populated and you say that this reinforces that Australia is significantly more rural than the USA, which makes no sense. The fact is that even in Australia’s remote areas, most of the population is concentrated in mining towns and such, and is therefore not rural. So the statistic of 12% for Australia was extremely generous as it could well be a mere fraction of that, in which case Australia is less rural than USA.

Whatever the context, a description is not apt if it is not accurate, and you have not in any way shown it to be accurate. If you wish to reflect the overall comparative crime rates, then maybe you should do so explicitly.

Can I perhaps ask you to clearly define what you mean by the statement that Australia is far more rural than the USA? I would have thought it referred to the percentage of the population that are in rural communities (as defined by the predominant activities of the community), but perhaps you are referring to something else.

Also, I didn’t suggest an improvement because I made the change to the article myself, as you well know because you censored it. But if you want a suggestion, either state the truth about comparative “rurality” or excise the statement altogether.

By the way, the article is attempting to make the case that gun control has effected Australian crime, culture and politics over the last decade or so but why should the effect start then, when gun control has been pretty tight for several decades at least? In the 1950’s in Western Australia my father had to fill out a form at the local police station before he could buy ammunition for his rifles (.303 and .22).[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 00:06, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:Okay, I had to guess what you meant. I am sure will will let me know. There a probably quite a number of ways of stating your point, but "far more rural" is just not accurate unless you are using terms in an uncommon fashion.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:17, 8 January 2009 (EST)

:: Good improvement. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 8 January 2009 (EST)

==Loss of the frontier spirit to urban "values" ==

Gun control is part of the urbanity of the [[Liberal Christianity|Christian left]]'s [[Social gospel]] program. Often the more urban and older the city, the more left the newspaper's bias. In the U.S. the development of the [[Social gospel]] into what is now almost a strict form of militant [[atheism]] and [[Liberation theology]] can be seen in the editorial practices of the ''[[New York Times]]''. Such a loss of frontier spirit hit the pages of the urban media like the '''New York Times''' first. Gun control comes from Australia's desire for [[modernism]], which is at the heart of the [[Social gospel]] agenda. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 22:34, 28 December 2008 (EST)

: Interesting. Thanks. I'm glad you used a small "g" for Social gospel.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 22:36, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== An Unbiased View (I hope)==

Because everyone above seems to be either strongly pro- or anti- gun control without really considering or stating the advantages of the other side, I decided to wade into this minefield in order to present what I hope is an unbiased view of both sides of the argument. I'll start with pro, because these things generally start like that (and not because I am pro gun control).
Right.

Pro:

:Less indiscriminate massacres such as Virginia Tech. These massacres are generally perpetrated by people who one day wake up and decide (for whatever reason - let's not argue about that now) that everyone but them deserves to die. They have no links to organized crime and the only place they can quickly get a gun from is a shop or their families. Gun control will prevent these people from getting their hands on a weapon and thus will help to prevent further massacres.

:Accidents happen. Kids could somehow obtain the guns and then injure themselves or others while playing with it or showing off to their friends. A husband might injure his wife while showing her what he bought today.

:Some homicides would be prevented (note the wording). Across the country there's always going to be someone of previously good character whose wife breaks up with him or is found in bed with someone else. Ocassionally these people will seek revenge and will use their guns to do it. Having no links to organized crime, they would find it difficult to otherwise obtain a gun.

:Would the knowledge that a gun MIGHT be in the house really put the criminals off? (After all, by doing crime they're already testing their luck).

:While homeowners having guns would lead to more cases of criminals being injured/killed by homeowners, there would also be more homeowners killed/injured by criminals. When there are two gun holders pointing a weapon at each other, there's a much higher chance that one will start firing. And it's just as likely (if not more so) that the criminal will shoot first, having less qualms about injuring another person.

Anti:

:Gun control won't prevent criminals from obtaining guns. They will have other means of getting guns (which could be smuggled in, modified from harmless replicas, etc.). This would leave the criminals with guns and the public without, and many people feel uneasy about this.

:Owning guns is a right as defined by the constitution, which thus far has served the American people well. Why change it?

:Surprise surprise, not everyone wants a gun so they can commit crimes with it. Guns do indeed have a defensive value and can be used to defend oneself or one's family (though this could have consequences - see final point of pro)

:Guns also have recreational value - hunting etc.

Well, that's my two cents. I hope this helps with the article (or at least helps people understand that there are two sides to this argument, not one, and either one is supportable depending on how one prioritizes things). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:31, 30 December 2008 (EST)

: Your "pros" and "cons" are quite biased, unfortunately. You do not mention how [[gun control]] has repeatedly led to genocide and socialism. You omit the main reason liberals push for gun control: they want the political effects that more government control brings.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:: Well, I didn't really do that much research, and I preferred to think about gun control on a personal level; I think it's a long shot to predict politcal change based on whether people have guns or not, and I don't see how gun control leads to genocide and socialism. But it's your wiki, so unless you want to I won't debate any further. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:22, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::: ETrundel, I thought you were trying to be substantive. I wouldn't have bothered responding to you if I knew you were going to wave off a substantive point about genocide like that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:52, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Trundel has presented the liberal POV of the pros and cons. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:05, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:I am trying to be substantive (sorry for any misunderstandings); from what I know of genocides, taking various African countries as examples, genocide is usually the result of the fact that every man and his dog has a gun stashed away somewhere - but this is not as a result of gun control, or the lack of it - rather, the fact that shady countries (for example, I believe China finds an eager weapons market in areas such as Zimbabwe and other parts of Africa) find that they can easily unload all their unwanted weapons, legally or otherwise. I have read the section on gun control and genocide, and I accept than unarmed groups are certainly easier targets for the army; however, I don't believe that the army would have particular trouble with an armed group either, and I believe that resistance can make things worse; more than one family has been murdered because a shot came from their house. And take the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in WW2; when Jews began to fight back against the Germans taking them to concentration camps, by the end of the battle (which lasted just a month) over 10,000 Jews lay dead, and another 50,000 were shipped off to extermination (not concentration) camps. I suppose it all depends on your point of view; as one historian put it, whether it is better to 'die on your feet or live on your knees'. In my opinion, it is better to die on your feet; however, all too often this leads to people dying on their knees as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstandings, and that you understand that I agree with the points stated in the article. However, I feel that the only way of preventing genocide by having guns is when the guns actually act as a deterrent, preventing conflict (rather than being used in a conflict). [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

::Completely incorrect. The mass murder of 800,000 people in Rwanda was carried out primarily with machetes. If every man had a gun stashed somewhere, machetes would have been useless. You yourself have acknowledged that unarmed groups are certainly easier targets. Did the Jews in the [[Warsaw Ghetto Uprisng]] have guns? How many? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:15, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::: If every man had a gun stashed in their house, the people committing the genocide would have had guns too. How would you expect the average Rwandan to get a gun anyway, let alone be able to use it? I've done a little research, and it turns out that the people doing the killing were militiamen, who would probably be more experienced with a gun than those people. I really don't think that more guns would've solved that problem.

::: I am against gun control for all of the reasons listed by ETrundel, not for reasons that it would lead to socialism and genocide. I agree that it is hard to predict political change that would stem from gun control. His was a good summary of the gun control contreversy, so why was it shot down like that? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:35, 6 January 2009 (EST) P.S. I changed this section back to its original name.

:::: JArneal, it is a historical fact that gun control has led to socialism and genocide. Please learn with an open mind first, and then comment. Simple logic explains this historical fact: there are far more people against genocide than in favor of it, and if guns are widely owned then it's clear which side would win. Take the guns away, and there is nothing to stop genocide. One more point: "controversy", not "contreversy". Not a problem if someone is earnestly trying to learn.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:00, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: That does make sense, but genocide usually targets the minority of people in a population, like in the most famous example of genocide, Hitler's final solution. In that situation, it is clear which side would win: Hitler's troops. In instances like Pol Pot's mass genocide, people who were killed were first isolated. It is unlikely that word of what was happening was widespread enough to encourage a revolution against the government. Guns would not have solved the problem. It is the regime that causes genocide, not gun control. I guess access to guns might have some minor effect in opposing genocide, but by the time an evil regime is in place, it's too late for those people unless there is foreign intervention. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 20:47, 7 January 2009 (EST)

== What is the conservative position on gun control? ==

I am pretty much in favor of having a very significant amount of freedom on gun ownership although I certainly do not believe that mentally ill people or people with serious criminal records should have guns and the society has to do a reasonably good job of preventing this from happening. I do think that the United States could do a better job of regulating gratuitous violence in film and television so it greatly lesser. I also think if more restitution were employed than maybe more criminals would think twice before assaulting people. Who wants to harm someone if you know you are mandated to pay all their medical bills by law with no escape via bankruptcy laws?

'''I think the debate regarding what is conservatism and what is the conservative position on gun control largely has to do with how countries define conservatism.''' The debate seems to often get
contentious when one tries to balance individual liberty versus what is good for the society.

'''In countries with a lot of Christians, conservatives often appeal to the Bible to help solve disputes.''' The Bible is of some help on the gun control issue but not definitive which is not surprising given that guns were not in existence during the biblical time period. The New Testament and Old Testament believer cultures were very communal in focus and were like Japanese cultures in some respects. Please see: Japanese culture
and biblical culture here: http://www.tektonics.org/af/culturegram.html
On the other hand, the Bible teaches that individuals are [[salvation|saved]] and
not entire cultures - although I think it can be argued that perhaps a
very large part of the Jewish population will come to believe in
Christ at the second coming of Christ according to Christian
theology.

We all know that the United States had a revolution and that
revolutions often deal with individual liberties. '''To what degree revolutions are allowed under the Bible versus being long suffering is a matter of debate.''' The commonwealth countries largely decided to be more long suffering than the USA and be more willing to use extended
dialogue. India chose the path of non-violent resistance. The USA
decided to have a revolution. Generally speaking revolutions rarely
achieve their objectives but overall I do think the American
Revolution War turned out pretty well although perhaps maybe we should
have taken the route of India because they seemed to overthrow unjust
British rule at the time largely without violence. I think the American
revolutionary war turning out pretty good was due to Christians being
more principled than the Marxist and many other ungodly people who promote
revolutions. As a result, the USA has a pretty good relationship with the UK at this time. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:27, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Logic, the [[Bible]], preventing genocide, and political considerations are all strongly against [[gun control]]. Political motivation is a primary reason there is still some support for it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, the problem with merely affirming that the Bible and logic are against gun control is that the opposition can merely affirm the opposite. Taking this approach on talk pages results in an approach like this: Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! Person #1: Does so! Person #2: Does not! etc. etc. I think an evidential approach is much more preferable. PJR and I had a dispute as far as the atheism page. We were able to solve our differences via Skype because I took a evidentialist approach. I don't think calling PJR a liberal when he is likely a conservative or moderate is helpful. I cannot say whether PJR is a conservative or moderate at this time but I can say that you don't find too many liberals who are young earth creationist, opposed to abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, and have a high view of Scripture. PJR certainly fits the bill in these matters as far as not being a liberal. Now if you can demonstrate that PJR takes a liberal view on a whole host of matters then I certainly would be willing to change my view that he is either a conservative or moderate. I don't think that Conservapedia needs to be quick draw when it comes to labeling people liberals given the existence of a large amount of moderates. I also think that people who claim they are staunch conservatives often show their true colors when the chips are down. At the very least, I do think that Bush should have bargained harder with the car manufacturers management and workers as far as them taking very significant pay cuts. I do think the leaders lead by example and the car manufacturers management should have taken the approach of Lee Iaccoca who at least had the decency to take a pay cut when asking for government assistance. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:05, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: User:Conservative, many [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]]. It depends in part on why someone is a [[YEC]], and also on how open his mind is to [[conservative]] values. If someone is a [[YEC]] based on [[materialism]], then that person is not likely to accept some of the abstract concepts of [[conservativism]]. If someone is a [[YEC]] because they dislike a religion that they perceive not to be a [[YEC]], then that person is as likely to be liberal as anyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::Andy, logicians state that you must use the principle of weighing the total evidence. PJR is against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle plus takes a high view of Scripture. These are certainly not liberal views. Although I certainly like PJR and recommended he be made Sysop and have talked to him quite amicably via Skype several times, I do not know him well enough to say whether he is a conservative or moderate. At the same time, I do see you failing to address the anti-abortion and ant-homosexuality views of PJR as being indicative of you not having a good case as far as him being a liberal. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:54, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, I don't know PJR's full position on abortion or the [[homosexual agenda]]. I do know that the political positions he has taken, such as in support of [[gun control]], are [[liberal]]. I also know that a substantial percentage of [[YEC]]s are [[liberal]] and did vote for [[Obama]]. If one is drawn to [[YEC]] for [[materialism]] reasons, then that person will tend to be materialistic on other matters, such as [[economics]] and [[gun control]] and other types of government control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)
::::::: I'm absolutely staggered that you can equate YEC with materialism! As Conservative and LowKey rightly point out, materialism presumes no supernatural, whereas YEC presumes the supernatural. They are complete opposites! I know that it's possible for people to hold two incompatible ideas, but these two are so opposite that it's difficult to imagine how anyone could, and I've never heard of a single person who does (and I know a lot of YECs). And to claim, as you do below, that "YEC is a material-focused viewpoint" is so totally contrary to the truth that it beggars belief that you would clam that!
::::::: Even apart from comments I've probably made on Conservapedia, in an e-mail that you received a copy of, I have made it clear that I oppose abortion and homosexuality. Your knowledge of my beliefs appears to be rather selective.
::::::: I also note that you refer to my "liberal" "political positions" (plural), yet name only one. Again this seems to be a case of maligning me based on one position that we disagree on, ignoring all the issues that we agree on.
::::::: The tangent of Obama is misleading also, given that (a) being an Aussie, I can't vote for Obama, (b) I find it very hard to believe that a significant number of YECs would vote for Obama, and (c) I have made it clear that I don't agree with Obama. Your basis for this seems to be a presumption that because I disagree with you on some claims about Obama, I am therefore an Obama supporter. This presumption is totally false.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Philip, polls demonstrated that something like 30% of young evangelical Christians, and even higher percentages of other Christian denominations, voted for Obama. Many of them are YECs. So there is nothing startling or remarkable about the possibility that a YEC is [[liberal]]. Millions are. Given the additional info that a YEC supports gun control makes it highly likely that he is liberal on other positions too.

:::::::: It's not productive for me to discuss your other political positions when you seem unwilling yourself to state them. If you want to discuss them, then you have to explain them first. You say you're against abortion, but so do many liberals who favor taxpayer-funded abortion. Do you favor ''prohibiting'' abortion? Do you favor lowering taxes? Do you support more free enterprise, and less government? Do you oppose same-sex marriage? If you want to discuss your political views, then you have to describe them first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:24, 14 January 2009 (EST)

:::Andy, see comments in the section below called: "Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation" [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:22, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::::Andy, I reread your post. YEC is a polar opposite from the philosophy of materialism which posits there is no supernatural entities. On the other hand, can a person who is YEC be materialistic? For example, be greedy? The answer is of course yes. I don't think you know enough about PJR to claim he is materialistic and logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. Furthermore, unless PJR is going to inherit a lot of money from a rich uncle if he remains a YEC or some other implausible scenario, I do not think you made a compelling case that PJR or many other people for that matter become YECs for materialistic reasons. Again, logic demands that the burden of proof is always upon the claimant. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:02, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::: Conservative, YEC is a material-focused viewpoint. Some (not all) YECs are materialistic, and they are likely to take materialistic positions on other issues, such gun control and wealth redistribution. Put another way, they support or are indifferent about many of Obama's liberal positions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:03, 6 January 2009 (EST)
(outdent) YEC and materialism (the philosophical position, not greed) are mutually exclusive. The first begins with the explicit belief in a supernatural creator, the second begins with the explicit disbelief in anything supernatural. You argument holds no water at all. Please abandon the ad hominem attacks and address the serious attempts to improve the article. I am reminded of a Christian speaker I once heard who said "We are given the full armour of God, and too many of us spend most of our time polishing our armour or attacking one another." Instead of dismissing PJR's observations because you don't think he's conservative enough, address them specifically.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 22:11, 8 January 2009 (EST)
: Well put. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:15, 14 January 2009 (EST)
I'm only familiar with "materialism" re. philosophy. What are materialist positions on gun control and wealth redistribution? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 11:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to...... ==

I am against liberals attempts at very strict control but I see this debate going on and on because we live in a multi-variable world. Perhaps the solution is to to look studies which used the approach of [[regression analysis]] to study the matter of gun control.[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 4 January 2009 (EST)

== Gun Control and socialism vis a vis regulation ==

Here is an excellent essay arguing that socialism is often advanced through excessive regulation and not merely through the state owning more and more property: http://gunowners.org/op0330.htm The essay argues that despite Thatcher selling off state owned enterprises the UK became more socialistic through excessive regulation and that gun control was a part of this mindset. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:34, 4 January 2009 (EST)

: Sounds like an article worth reading!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:37, 4 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I was doing a Google search and it appears as if the following may be true: When Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the UK, the Firearms Act of 1988 was passed which I assume favored gun control given the context of the passage I read. Does anyone know if Thatcher (who was pretty conservative) was opposed or in favor of the FireArms act of 1988? If she was for the act, then I would argue that the road to more socialism may be often be the result of excessive regulation despite the state selling off state enterprises in the short term. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:43, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: Conservative, it's irrelevant which position Thatcher took, who would have merely been reacting to media pressure.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2009 (EST)

::::::::Andy, Thatcher was known for a lot of things but being spineless was not one of them -two of her nicknames were "the iron lady" and Atilla the Hen". The Wall Street Journal reported the following: "Margaret Thatcher's conservative government responded to the killings by enacting the most draconian firearms act ever adopted in Britain, including outlawing semiautomatic weapons altogether."[http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Firearms/Books%20and%20News/Guns%20and%20Bobbies] Now you might not feel comfortable with conservatives passing gun control but it appears as if it happened here. I do think once should be a optimistic realist and the reality is that a government headed by a staunch conservative passed gun control in the UK. Of course, the question is still, "Does conservative principles allow for gun control laws to be passed". That is an entirely separate question. I do not think liberal governments adequately protect citizens so I am against stringent gun control control laws. I also see gun ownership as a means to help prevent genocide and a police state from abusing its citizens.I think the case of Thatcher bolsters PJR's argument that conservatives passed gun control in Australia. However, I do see where one can argue that Australian conservatives are really more political moderates on the whole since they have gun control and I believe they have socialized medicine as well. That is a debate I will leave to you and PJR!! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:44, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::::::''' Andy, I do think that at present the United States has one of the worst overall policies in the Western World when it comes to a gun control and allowing conditions that promote violence. ''' We allow the media to push gratuitous violence and desensitize people. We also allow the media to push sexual content which often leads to fatherless homes because it leads to out of marriage sex and the fathers leaving the mothers to hold the bag. And I have read that 70% of all rapist and murders come from fatherless homes and this data is largely mirrored here: http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/fatherless.html ''' This policy to me is like allowing people to have gasoline, allowing the media to push dangerous ideas on how gasoline should be used, and then telling the police they have to deal with the situation the best they can.''' It is a foolish policy. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:26, 4 January 2009 (EST)

*More of this argument without end? The Supreme Court of the United States has decided this issue! Citizens have the ''absolute right to keep and bear arms and cannot be forbidden or be unreasonably stopped from doing so.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:32, 4 January 2009 (EST)

:::::TK, there are about 6 billion people who live outside the USA. And there is certainly nothing wrong with learning lessons from history as far as other nations. Next, the laws are always changing so there is nothing wrong with vigilance. With that said, I certainly am happy that gun ownership is still a right in the United States but we do have to reduce our societies level of violence because it is high compared to many nations. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:17, 5 January 2009 (EST)

*We learned here, in America, to reject the Old World, and its ways. That said, I think we can all be more productive creating, rather than keeping this argument alive another month. The boss has had his say, so has everyone else. Repeating the same another hundred times isn't going to change anyone's mind. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Administrator[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:41, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Try correlating gun control vs. mass murder, and you'll see that the countries with the most effective confiscation of guns from their citizens had the highest rates of genocide.

It's also very hard for a dictator to invade a democratic country when the majority of its citizens are armed. Switzerland is not protected only by mountains and "neutrality". And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists.

Crime in NYC would go down dramatically if every law-abiding citizen were allowed to get a gun and carry it around with them, loaded. Especially in high-crime poverty-stricken areas. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:10, 5 January 2009 (EST)

:''And girls carrying machine guns are a great stopper against suicide bomb terrorists'' If suicide bombers are at all effective in what they do, the first anybody knows about them is when they detonate their bombs. What use will these Uzi-toting maidens be then? [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:05, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::Are you debating me, or are you making a suggestion to improve the article? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]
:::I'm trying to improve the service here by pointing out illogicalities in your argument. [[User:DougC|DougC]] 10:09, 6 January 2009 (EST)

Alternative medicine

2009-01-13T01:15:00Z

RodWeathers: Redirecting to Complementary and Alternative Medicine

#REDIRECT [[Complementary and Alternative Medicine]]

Homeopathy

2009-01-13T01:14:05Z

RodWeathers: Real info. This is no place for insane liberal quackery

'''Homeopathy''' is a quack theory of [[alternative medicine]] which tries to treat illnesses with infinitesimal doses of the drugs that cause the same symptom as the illness. Homeopathy is based on the ideas of [[Samuel Hahnemann]], a 19th century physician who observed that some contemporary medicines evoked symptoms similar to those of the illnesses for which they were prescribed.

Critics claim there is no clear evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic remedies.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml</ref> They further argue that the reported effects are equivalent to placebo.<ref>http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html</ref>

Homeopathic beliefs have no standard theory; practitioners vary widely in their prescriptions. No known scientific pathway for the medicines exists, and the theory defies all known physics, biology, and chemistry, particularly as the medicines consist of arbitrary substances diluted to the point where the mixture is entirely water.

== Homeopath beliefs ==
Homeopathic remedies involve treating an illness with an infinitesimally small dose of a substance that, at bigger doses, can cause symptoms that are like those of the illness (treating 'like with like'). Homeopaths believe that the 'potency' of a remedy can be increased by serial dilutions (repetitively adding water or alcohol) combined with vigorous shaking, to the point where little or none of the original solution remains as part of the final prepared remedy.

The word 'homeopathy' was first used by the German physician Christian Friedrich Samuel Hahnemann (1755-1843). Hahnemann was an eminent physician and a prominent public health reformer. He believed that his new system was more humane and effective than the conventional medicine of his time<ref>Hahnemann S (1796) translated into English as "[http://www.minutus.org/library/article_read.asp?id=6 Essay on a New Principle]". Hahnemann's [http://www.homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html Organon der Heilkunst] in English translation</ref>, but it was greeted by the establishment with derision and contempt.<ref>Dean ME (2001) [http://shpltd.co.uk/dean-homeopathy.pdf Homeopathy and the progress of science] Hist Scixxxix</ref> Today, homeopathy is not an accepted part of conventional medicine, and its theories are not generally regarded as scientifically credible, but nevertheless it has more than 100,000 practitioners worldwide, and 500 million users.

Homeopathy (from the Greek hómoios (similar) and páthos (suffering)) regards diseases as 'morbid derangements of the organism', that involve some disturbance in a 'vital force.' Today, most homeopaths still believe that the fundamental causes of disease are internal and constitutional and that it is contrary to good health to suppress symptoms. They also accept the concept of 'latent Psora', the early signs of an organism’s imbalance which indicate that treatment is needed.

== See also ==

*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Mind/body]]

== References ==
<references />
[[category:medicine]]
[[category:pseudoscience]]

Pseudoscience

2009-01-13T01:07:56Z

RodWeathers: beginning expansion

'''Pseudoscience''' is theory or speculation which has the trappings and [[rhetoric]] of [[science]], and presented as science, but not generally accepted as valid by the scientific community. Theories are typically classed as pseudoscientific if they fail the [[scientific method]]. Pseudoscientific theories are typically no falsifiable, lack objectivity, and their purveyors show unwillingness to allow neutral outsiders to observe, test, or replicate their findings.

== Falsifiability ==
The most cited element of scientific theory is [[falsifiability]], established by [[philosopher]] [[Karl Popper]]. A falsifiable theory makes predictions, which can be used to test it. Thus, the theory of gravity is falsifiable, as it predicts that an apple held above the ground and released will fall. If it fails the test, it is discarded, and if it passes, it is not proven, but better supported.

== Disproven science ==
The term pseudoscience is also often applied to theories which ''are'' falsifiable and have in fact been falsified and discarded. [[Phrenology]] predicted that psychological traits could be inferred from the shape of the skull, but no actual link was ever found. Various [[astrological]] theories predicted regular planetary effects on the earth and human health, but testing those failed.

The existence of God is thus not considered scientific theory, as no test can possibly be conceived which categorically disproves His existence. The same is the case for [[string theory]], which is a mathematical unification of scientific theory, but makes no predictions. Such things fall outside the realm of science.

== Charlatanism ==
The label of pseudoscience is commonly given to [[charlatans]], who claim abnormal powers and abilities, but refuse to demonstrate them in objective, controlled, monitored environments. For example, [[Uri Geller]] claims to be able to bend spoons without applying pressure to them, but he cannot do it in front of scientists or journalists. Countless conjurers and mediums claim to be able to speak with the dead, but controlled circumstances reveal that they are really only conducting clever psychological tricks.

== Metaphysics ==
Spiritual, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious beliefs are occasionally confused with pseudoscience, as there is often an overlap in rhetoric, and charlatans blur the lines between scientific and philosophical ideas of knowledge.

== Public belief ==
Despite evidence and logic against pseudoscientific theories, many remain popular among the public. Homeopathic medicine is available at most health-food stores and is a multi-billion dollar business, and 31% of Americans believe in astrology.

Notably, twice as many [[Democrats]] believe in astrology as [[Republicans]], showing a strong bent of irrationality and scientific illiteracy among [[liberals]].<ref>http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359</ref>

==Examples of pseudosciences==
*[[Animal magnetism]]
*[[Astrology]]
*[[Chiropractic]] (Note that the term now refers to two distinct practices. The original idea, that subluxations of the spine cause all illness, has been utterly rejected)
*[[Dianetics]]
*[[Evolution|Evolutionary biology]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref> <ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>
*[[Graphology]]
*[[Homeopathy]]
*[[Iridology]]
*[[Lysenkoism]]
*[[Mesmerism]]
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Osteopathy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]
*[[Phrenology]]
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Reflexology]]
*[[Ufology]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Pseudoscience]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-12T19:51:30Z

RodWeathers: /* New liberal words */

Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. Since the [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] was published in 1611, perhaps a half a million new English words have been developed.

A small percentage of those new words are tremendously powerful. Here are some examples developed since the King James Version was published:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1965
|
|-
|American dream
|1911 (OED)<ref>OED refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|bailout
|1951
|The verbal form ''to bail out'' (in a figurative sense, which is meant here) dates from the 1580s. The literal sense is somewhat earlier. <ref>OED, ''bail, v1''</ref>
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine [[charity]] is the best approach;
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|me-too
|1881
|
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated at the [[liberal]] [[University of Madison-Wisconsin]] to enforce liberal orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of liberals.<ref>But see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not *politically correct</ref>
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|pro-life
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|responsibility
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|self-defense
|1651
|
|-
|self-discipline
|1838
|
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|the second most recent entry; a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|5
|-
|1700s
|3
|-
|1800s
|12
|-
|1900s
|16
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Developed ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Developed Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|the opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|runaway jury
|
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|-
|second-generation atheist
|
|
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|
|
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|term limits
|
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com includes it with an origin date of 1861[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit]
|}

== New liberal words ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|atheist
|1571
|
|-
|"Big Bang"
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed
|-
|carbon footprint
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|communism
|1840
|
|-
|detente
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|enlightenment
|1669
|
|-
|environmentalism
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|fundamentalism
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|feminism
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|humanism
|1832
|
|-
|imperialism
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|isolationism
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|Living Constitution
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|politically correct
|1936
|According to some sources, the term originally comes from Chairman Mao
|-
|pro-choice
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|progressivism
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] without logical meaning
|-
|racism
|
|If you don't support Barack Obama, you are guilty of....
|-
|sexism
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|unitarian
|1687
|
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|entropy
|1868
|
|-
|filibuster
|1851
|
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|milquetoast
|1933
|
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|radar
|1940
|Acronym of "Radio Detection and Ranging"; inclusion here being challenged on talk page
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Atheist agenda

2009-01-11T19:39:23Z

RodWeathers:

[[Image:Josephstalin.jpg‎|right|300px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]] forced atheism on the [[Soviet Union]] using its education system.]]
The '''atheist agenda''' refers to an extensive [[ideology]] and programme, common to avowed [[atheists]].
{{cquote|Atheism has long ceased to be a rare and oft-ignored philosophical outlook...It has transformed itself into an active political programme with clear objectives which, though they vary from state to state, unequivocally include the elimination of state religion, religious education, and the enshrinement of scientism. - Gordon Stein<ref>Gordon Stein, ''Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion,'' 74.</ref>}}

It involves the following objectives:
# Removing [[Creation Science]] from curricula and outlawing its teaching in schools
# Outlawing ''personal'' [[religion]] in schools under the guise of "separation of church and state"
# Indoctrinating atheistic and [[evolution|evolutionary]] ideology into students, and thus the public at large
# Undermining [[Christianity]] and other organized religion through widespread misinformation and [[deceit]]

== History ==
The atheist ''political'' movement originated during the [[French Revolution]], as [[Jacques Hébert]] and the [[Hébertists]] seeking to create a national atheist religion, the [[Cult of Reason]] in opposition to [[Robespierre]]'s theistic (though violently [[deism|deistic]] and anti-Christian) [[Cult of the Supreme Being]].

Atheists' attempts to destroy faith were magnified in the 19th century, as philosophers such as [[Comte]] and [[Marx]] attempted to describe religion's downfall as inevitable, while [[Darwin]] and [[Freud]] attempted to twist science to support [[atheism]] in a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fashion. (Note that the vast majority of scientists remained Christian throughout the 18th-20th centuries.)

== Creation Science and Evolution ==
The agenda begins with education, as it is the most powerful way to impact the views of a populace. Atheists force the teaching of evolution ''as fact'' into scientific curricula, while using lawsuits to silence critics and remove and prohibit [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://fleshandstone.net/healthandsciencenews/1431.html</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29374</ref><ref>http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/11/09/creationism/index.html</ref>

By doing so, atheists can remove the necessity of God in the universe in the minds of students, providing a foothold for atheist ideology, while connecting atheism with accepted scientific theory, though the link is nonsensical.

Atheist evolutionists routinely refuse to debate, notably as they typically lose to creationists, instead choosing to mock and deride creationism as not worth their time.

== Outlawing Personal Religion ==
Atheists seek to not only make school sanctioning of religious activity illegal, but to make any profession or personal act of religion illegal in educational institutions. This has had some limited success in the [[United States]], but is state policy in [[France]], where wearing religious clothing or symbols is an expulsion offense. By limiting or removing religious expression in schools, atheists hope to reduce its impact in students' lives and, most importantly, limit opportunities to spread the word. The ultimate expression of this, to which all atheists aspire, was the prohibition of all forms of religious expression in [[Communist]]-era [[Albania]] (1945-1991).

[[image:Hitler_Youth.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Adolf Hitler]] similarly indoctrinated German children with atheism via the [[Hitler Youth]].<ref>Karla Poewe, ''New religions and the Nazis,'' 85.</ref>]]

== Indoctrinating Atheism ==
=== Biology ===
Atheists use biology and religious studies classes to:
# Instill the idea that man is just another animal
# Suggest that [[Christianity]] is "just another religion," not inspired truth
# Belittle those who hold viewpoints opposed to evolution, atheism, or liberalism in general
# Establish that there are no 'absolute' morals, and belittle those who think there are
# Hide the facts connecting atheism to crime, poor mental health, and suicide

=== Media ===
Atheists also promote atheist propaganda through books, television, and film, such as the thinly veiled ''[[His Dark Materials]]'' trilogy and accompanying film ''[[The Golden Compass]]''.

=== Philosophy ===
In philosophy classes, atheists focus heavily on atheist and nihilist thinkers, especially [[Descartes]] and [[Nietzsche]], while ignoring far more important and influential Christian philosophers, such as [[St. Augustine]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], and [[Kant]], in an attempt to paint atheism as intellectual and faith as foolish.

== Undermining Religion ==
This is perhaps the broadest aspect of the atheist agenda. It involves activity in virtually all spheres of public discourse, but especially [[broadcast]] and [[print]] media, as well as higher educational institutions.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref>

The primary route is through the liberal mainstream media, which routinely portrays religion and the faithful in a negative light. Pro-atheist and anti-religious articles are routinely printed in newspapers and magazines, and even letters to the editor are selected in a biased fashion. Portraying adherents of religion as intolerant, racist, or otherwise foolish is a key tactic in painting it in a negative manner.

Atheists and liberals are avidly attempting to discredit the impact of [[Providence]] in human [[history]] (see [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History| Liberal Denials about History]]), despite it being easily proven for centuries, since [[Francis Bacon|Bacon]] and [[John Foxe]], and its acceptance by the American [[founding fathers]].

== See Also ==
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Atheistic tools]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Nb Atheism}}

[[category:atheism]]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-11T18:23:05Z

RodWeathers: remove vandalism

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-11T18:19:50Z

RodWeathers: /* Conservative Words Not Yet Developed */

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-01-11T18:17:51Z

RodWeathers: /* Spiritualism */

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Pseudoscience

2009-01-11T17:34:25Z

RodWeathers: /* Psychoanalysis */

{{protected|Conservative}}
[[Eugenics]] is a classic example of a pseudoscience. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Graphology too. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This page is all locked up, and contains loads of duplicated nonsense. Someone fix it.

= Consistent formatting and content. =

Please use consistent formatting for the various lists and spaces between the refs. As it stands, the Theory of Evolution link has no bullet item and a space between two refs. Additionally, if the Theory of Evolution is to have external references, please provide external references for all of the other items on the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are there external references for Theory of Evolution when there are none for any of the other links? What purpose do these external references serve that cannot be found by looking at the article mentioned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

= Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others... =
Can a sysop look over these changes and make the edit? As of yet, Conservative has not responded to either the request to look here, or that of the one made on his talk page. The concern I have is the lack of consistency between the external resources for the page. I honestly believe that non external links should needed for this page (and instead address the issues on the pages they link to), but if they are to be there, they should be there for all of them. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My request to have Conservative on his talk page has been ignored. No one has responded here. The page is locked. Can someone please say "yea" or "nay" to the proposed changes and links on this page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a sysop, and I favor deleting the page. It is just opinion. Why should it even be here? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a person, and I don't favor deleting the page. It is just an opinion, but I think there could be something very important said on the topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] you mean not your opinion. You don't seem to be averse to pushing [[Exotheology|blustering opinion]]s of your own. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
*[[Astrology]]<ref>http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html</ref>
*[[Dianetics]]<ref>http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html</ref>
*[[Exotheology]]
*[[Graphology]]<ref>http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm</ref>
*[[Iridology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/iridol.html</ref>
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm</ref>
*[[Phrenology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/phren.html</ref>
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Ufology]]

== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
*[[Theory of evolution]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
*[[Intelligent Design]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html</ref>
*[[Creation Science]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/creation.html</ref>
*[[Cryptozoology]]

==References==
<references/>

== Proposed revision ==
The term ''pseudoscience'' is really just an epithet for expressing disapproval of some ideas. There is no good definition that allows objective listing of just what is or is not a pseudoscience. Even the Uri Geller example is unconvincing. Does he pretend to be scientific? If not, then it is not pseudoscience. Geller has done all sorts of public demonstrations, so the fact that he has refused to bend spoons in some situations is not conclusive.

Generating lists of what is or is not pseudoscience is a silly exercise that just reflects the prejudices of the editors. It is just the sort of thing that Wikipedia would do that Conservapedia should avoid. I propose that a short definition be given, and the lists be omitted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Okay, let's suppose I think that global warming is a commie plot. Then it might be unscientific, political, fraudulent, destructive, socialist, and I don't know what else, but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. How would I show that it is pseudo-scientific and why would anyone care?
::: If you really think that pseudo-science is a useful term, then why not introduce pseudo-conservative, pseudo-democracy, pseudo-truth, and pseudo-religion? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you show examples of where those terms have been used and in contexts that address the comment by Gulik? "pseudo-science" is a term that is used ''regularly'' as opposed to pseudo-religion which is tautological, and pseudo-truth which is an oxymoron, for starters. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Why isn't [[Theory of Evolution]] mentioned here? Although I agree it's not as flimsy as, for example, [[phrenology]], it's important to mention it since it's still aggressively promoted by some scientists, without standing on any firm scientific grounds. Although not a '''good''' example of pseudoscience, it's an '''important''' example of pseudoscience. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Calling the theory of evolution a pseudoscience because an EXTREME minority of scientists disaggree is like calling all medical science and knowledge a pseudoscience because some people think new age medicine is more valid. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution, people can dissaggree with it, but it is supported by testing, and follows the scientific method, unlike intelligent design, which only follows the first two steps. You can choose to not call ID a pseudoscience, but there is no concievable way you could justify calling evolution one.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 09:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Psychoanalysis ==

Can someone provide an explanation as to why this term is on the list? I'm not removing it without asking first, but I don't see how this belongs in the same category as the others. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:02, 11 January 2009 (EST)
: Look into Freudian psychoanalysis (as opposed to modern psychology). It's based upon a lot of very crazy beliefs that are not testable (tripartite separation of the psyche, Oedipal complexes, etc.) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:[edit: agree with Rod] Have you found any proof of psychoanalysis? Or is it just the sex-obsessed maunderings of Freud and his cultist followers? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST) (EST)

::I think there needs to be a distinction between the state of a scientific field at the time of its origins, and the current level state of the art. Early medicine involved techniques like bloodletting and the use of leeches that would be considered bad or pseudoscience today, but we don't regard contemporary medicine by those early practices. In the same light, I would not evaluate the validity of modern-day psychoanalysis by the methods of its first practicioners like Freud, who were taking baby steps by comparison. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:::Psychoanalysis is, almost by definition, based upon an acceptance of Freudian theory. You can't separate 'then' from 'now' in this field. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:::Mike is right. There's a reason why the term psychology is used rather than psychoanalysis. There is no psychoanalytic "science." [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:34, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Climate change==
'Anthroprogenic Global Warming' - the greatest con perpetrated by pseudoscientists in recent decades - surely this should have a place. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 12:12, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Pseudoscience

2009-01-11T17:10:11Z

RodWeathers: /* Psychoanalysis */

Talk:Pseudoscience

2009-01-11T17:09:42Z

RodWeathers: /* Psychoanalysis */

{{protected|Conservative}}
[[Eugenics]] is a classic example of a pseudoscience. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Graphology too. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 16:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

This page is all locked up, and contains loads of duplicated nonsense. Someone fix it.

= Consistent formatting and content. =

Please use consistent formatting for the various lists and spaces between the refs. As it stands, the Theory of Evolution link has no bullet item and a space between two refs. Additionally, if the Theory of Evolution is to have external references, please provide external references for all of the other items on the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:24, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Why are there external references for Theory of Evolution when there are none for any of the other links? What purpose do these external references serve that cannot be found by looking at the article mentioned? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 19:35, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

= Failing removal of the linked resources for evolution, links for the others... =
Can a sysop look over these changes and make the edit? As of yet, Conservative has not responded to either the request to look here, or that of the one made on his talk page. The concern I have is the lack of consistency between the external resources for the page. I honestly believe that non external links should needed for this page (and instead address the issues on the pages they link to), but if they are to be there, they should be there for all of them. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My request to have Conservative on his talk page has been ignored. No one has responded here. The page is locked. Can someone please say "yea" or "nay" to the proposed changes and links on this page? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:48, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a sysop, and I favor deleting the page. It is just opinion. Why should it even be here? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:47, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I am a person, and I don't favor deleting the page. It is just an opinion, but I think there could be something very important said on the topic. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:[[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] you mean not your opinion. You don't seem to be averse to pushing [[Exotheology|blustering opinion]]s of your own. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 12:13, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences==
*[[Astrology]]<ref>http://www.astrosociety.org/education/resources/pseudobib.html</ref>
*[[Dianetics]]<ref>http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html</ref>
*[[Exotheology]]
*[[Graphology]]<ref>http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm</ref>
*[[Iridology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/iridol.html</ref>
*[[Orgone therapy]]
*[[Parapsychology]]<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/parapsychology/a/repeatable.htm</ref>
*[[Phrenology]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/phren.html</ref>
*[[Psychoanalysis]]
*[[Ufology]]

== Example of a field often classified as pseudoscience by conservatives ==
*[[Theory of evolution]]<ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/there-is-no-theory-of-evolution/</ref><ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html</ref><ref>http://www.parentcompany.com/science_kit/sk3b.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/reprints/Evolution-Fact-or-Theory.pdf</ref>

==Examples of fields often classified as pseudosciences by liberals==
*[[Intelligent Design]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html</ref>
*[[Creation Science]]<ref>http://skepdic.com/creation.html</ref>
*[[Cryptozoology]]

==References==
<references/>

== Proposed revision ==
The term ''pseudoscience'' is really just an epithet for expressing disapproval of some ideas. There is no good definition that allows objective listing of just what is or is not a pseudoscience. Even the Uri Geller example is unconvincing. Does he pretend to be scientific? If not, then it is not pseudoscience. Geller has done all sorts of public demonstrations, so the fact that he has refused to bend spoons in some situations is not conclusive.

Generating lists of what is or is not pseudoscience is a silly exercise that just reflects the prejudices of the editors. It is just the sort of thing that Wikipedia would do that Conservapedia should avoid. I propose that a short definition be given, and the lists be omitted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:53, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Disagree, if this is supposed to be different form Wikipedia we should show how lists of this sort might be created with a liberal bent. Ergo, a list with conservative bias, per CP guidelines and commandments. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:43, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't even see how to create a list with conservative bias. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:39, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, leaving 'evolution' on the list might be a good start. (If you don't mind looking silly to both liberals AND conservatives who happen not to treat the Old Testament as a science textbook, that is.) And you can add "global warming", seeing how at least some conservatives seem to think it's a Communist plot to destroy the American economy. --[[User:Gulik2|Gulik2]] 00:43, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Okay, let's suppose I think that global warming is a commie plot. Then it might be unscientific, political, fraudulent, destructive, socialist, and I don't know what else, but not necessarily pseudo-scientific. How would I show that it is pseudo-scientific and why would anyone care?
::: If you really think that pseudo-science is a useful term, then why not introduce pseudo-conservative, pseudo-democracy, pseudo-truth, and pseudo-religion? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Can you show examples of where those terms have been used and in contexts that address the comment by Gulik? "pseudo-science" is a term that is used ''regularly'' as opposed to pseudo-religion which is tautological, and pseudo-truth which is an oxymoron, for starters. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:32, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Why isn't [[Theory of Evolution]] mentioned here? Although I agree it's not as flimsy as, for example, [[phrenology]], it's important to mention it since it's still aggressively promoted by some scientists, without standing on any firm scientific grounds. Although not a '''good''' example of pseudoscience, it's an '''important''' example of pseudoscience. [[User:Hammet|Hammet]] 11:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Calling the theory of evolution a pseudoscience because an EXTREME minority of scientists disaggree is like calling all medical science and knowledge a pseudoscience because some people think new age medicine is more valid. The vast majority of the scientific community supports evolution, people can dissaggree with it, but it is supported by testing, and follows the scientific method, unlike intelligent design, which only follows the first two steps. You can choose to not call ID a pseudoscience, but there is no concievable way you could justify calling evolution one.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 09:34, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Psychoanalysis ==

Can someone provide an explanation as to why this term is on the list? I'm not removing it without asking first, but I don't see how this belongs in the same category as the others. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:02, 11 January 2009 (EST)
: Look into Freudian psychoanalysis (as opposed to modern psychology). It's based upon a lot of very crazy beliefs that are not testable (Oedipal complexes, etc.) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 12:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

Atheist agenda

2009-01-11T17:07:44Z

RodWeathers:

[[Image:Josephstalin.jpg‎|right|300px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]] forced atheism on the [[Soviet Union]] using its education system.]]
The '''atheist agenda''' refers to an extensive [[ideology]] and programme, common to avowed [[atheists]].

{{cquote|Atheism has long ceased to be a rare and oft-ignored philosophical outlook...It has transformed itself into an active political programme with clear objectives which, though they vary from state to state, unequivocally include the elimination of state religion, religious education, and the enshrinement of scientism. - Gordon Stein<ref>Gordon Stein, ''Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion,'' 74.</ref>}}

It involves the following objectives:
# Removing [[Creation Science]] from curricula and outlawing its teaching in schools
# Outlawing ''personal'' [[religion]] in schools under the guise of "separation of church and state"
# Indoctrinating atheistic and [[evolution|evolutionary]] ideology into students, and thus the public at large
# Undermining [[Christianity]] and other organized religion through widespread misinformation and [[deceit]]

== History ==
The atheist ''political'' movement originated during the [[French Revolution]], as [[Jacques Hébert]] and the [[Hébertists]] seeking to create a national atheist religion, the [[Cult of Reason]] in opposition to [[Robespierre]]'s theistic (though violently [[deism|deistic]] and anti-Christian) [[Cult of the Supreme Being]].

Atheists' attempts to destroy faith were magnified in the 19th century, as philosophers such as [[Comte]] and [[Marx]] attempted to describe religion's downfall as inevitable, while [[Darwin]] and [[Freud]] attempted to twist science to support [[atheism]] in a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fashion. (Note that the vast majority of scientists remained Christian throughout the 18th-20th centuries.)

== Creation Science and Evolution ==
The agenda begins with education, as it is the most powerful way to impact the views of a populace. Atheists force the teaching of evolution ''as fact'' into scientific curricula, while using lawsuits to silence critics and remove and prohibit [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://fleshandstone.net/healthandsciencenews/1431.html</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29374</ref><ref>http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/11/09/creationism/index.html</ref>

By doing so, atheists can remove the necessity of God in the universe in the minds of students, providing a foothold for atheist ideology.

Atheist evolutionists routinely refuse to debate, notably as they typically lose to creationists, instead choosing to mock and deride creationism as not worth their time.

== Outlawing Personal Religion ==
Atheists seek to not only make school sanctioning of religious activity illegal, but to make any profession or personal act of religion illegal in educational institutions. This has had some limited success in the [[United States]], but is state policy in [[France]], where wearing religious clothing or symbols is an expulsion offense. By limiting or removing religious expression in schools, atheists hope to reduce its impact in students' lives and, most importantly, limit opportunities to spread the word. The ultimate expression of this, to which all atheists aspire, was the prohibition of all forms of religious expression in [[Communist]]-era [[Albania]] (1945-1991).

[[image:Hitler_Youth.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Adolf Hitler]] similarly indoctrinated German children with atheism via the [[Hitler Youth]].<ref>Karla Poewe, ''New religions and the Nazis,'' 85.</ref>]]

== Indoctrinating Atheism ==
=== Biology ===
Atheists use biology and religious studies classes to:
# Instill the idea that man is just another animal
# Suggest that [[Christianity]] is "just another religion," not inspired truth
# Belittle those who hold viewpoints opposed to evolution, atheism, or liberalism in general
# Establish that there are no 'absolute' morals, and belittle those who think there are
# Hide the facts connecting atheism to crime, poor mental health, and suicide

=== Media ===
Atheists also promote atheist propaganda through books, television, and film, such as the thinly veiled ''[[His Dark Materials]]'' trilogy and accompanying film ''[[The Golden Compass]]''.

=== Philosophy ===
In philosophy classes, atheists focus heavily on atheist and nihilist thinkers, especially [[Descartes]] and [[Nietzsche]], while ignoring far more important and influential Christian philosophers, such as [[St. Augustine]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], and [[Kant]], in an attempt to paint atheism as intellectual and faith as foolish.

== Undermining Religion ==
This is perhaps the broadest aspect of the atheist agenda. It involves activity in virtually all spheres of public discourse, but especially [[broadcast]] and [[print]] media, as well as higher educational institutions.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref>

The primary route is through the liberal mainstream media, which routinely portrays religion and the faithful in a negative light. Pro-atheist and anti-religious articles are routinely printed in newspapers and magazines, and even letters to the editor are selected in a biased fashion. Portraying adherents of religion as intolerant, racist, or otherwise foolish is a key tactic in painting it in a negative manner.

Atheists and liberals are avidly attempting to discredit the impact of [[Providence]] in human [[history]] (see [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History| Liberal Denials about History]]), despite it being easily proven for centuries, since [[Francis Bacon|Bacon]] and [[John Foxe]], and its acceptance by the American [[founding fathers]].

== See Also ==
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Atheistic tools]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Nb Atheism}}

[[category:atheism]]

Atheist agenda

2009-01-11T17:04:10Z

RodWeathers: history

[[Image:Josephstalin.jpg‎|right|300px|thumb|[[Joseph Stalin]] forced atheism on the [[Soviet Union]] using its education system.]]
The '''atheist agenda''' refers to an extensive [[ideology]] and programme, common to avowed [[atheists]].

{{cquote|Atheism has long ceased to be a rare and oft-ignored philosophical outlook...It has transformed itself into an active political programme with clear objectives which, though they vary from state to state, unequivocally include the elimination of state religion, religious education, and the enshrinement of scientism. - Gordon Stein<ref>Gordon Stein, ''Encyclopedia of Politics and Religion,'' 74.</ref>}}

It involves the following objectives:
# Removing [[Creation Science]] from curricula and outlawing its teaching in schools
# Outlawing ''personal'' [[religion]] in schools under the guise of "separation of church and state"
# Indoctrinating atheistic and [[evolution|evolutionary]] ideology into students, and thus the public at large
# Undermining [[Christianity]] and other organized religion through widespread misinformation and [[deceit]]

== History ==
The atheist ''political'' movement originated during the [[French Revolution]], as [[Jacques Hébert]] and the [[Hébertists]] seeking to create a national atheist religion, the [[Cult of Reason]] in opposition to [[Robespierre]]'s theistic [[Cult of the Supreme Being]].

Atheists' attempts to destroy faith were magnified in the 19th century, as philosophers such as [[Comte]] and [[Marx]] attempted to describe religion's downfall as inevitable, while [[Darwin]] and [[Freud]] attempted to twist science to support [[atheism]] in a [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] fashion. (Note that the vast majority of scientists remained Christian throughout the 18th-20th centuries.)

== Creation Science and Evolution ==
The agenda begins with education, as it is the most powerful way to impact the views of a populace. Atheists force the teaching of evolution ''as fact'' into scientific curricula, while using lawsuits to silence critics and remove and prohibit [[intelligent design]].<ref>http://fleshandstone.net/healthandsciencenews/1431.html</ref><ref>http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=29374</ref><ref>http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/11/09/creationism/index.html</ref>

By doing so, atheists can remove the necessity of God in the universe in the minds of students, providing a foothold for atheist ideology.

Atheist evolutionists routinely refuse to debate, notably as they typically lose to creationists, instead choosing to mock and deride creationism as not worth their time.

== Outlawing Personal Religion ==
Atheists seek to not only make school sanctioning of religious activity illegal, but to make any profession or personal act of religion illegal in educational institutions. This has had some limited success in the [[United States]], but is state policy in [[France]], where wearing religious clothing or symbols is an expulsion offense. By limiting or removing religious expression in schools, atheists hope to reduce its impact in students' lives and, most importantly, limit opportunities to spread the word. The ultimate expression of this, to which all atheists aspire, was the prohibition of all forms of religious expression in [[Communist]]-era [[Albania]] (1945-1991).

[[image:Hitler_Youth.jpg|right|200px|thumb|[[Adolf Hitler]] similarly indoctrinated German children with atheism via the [[Hitler Youth]].<ref>Karla Poewe, ''New religions and the Nazis,'' 85.</ref>]]

== Indoctrinating Atheism ==
=== Biology ===
Atheists use biology and religious studies classes to:
# Instill the idea that man is just another animal
# Suggest that [[Christianity]] is "just another religion," not inspired truth
# Belittle those who hold viewpoints opposed to evolution, atheism, or liberalism in general
# Establish that there are no 'absolute' morals, and belittle those who think there are
# Hide the facts connecting atheism to crime, poor mental health, and suicide

=== Media ===
Atheists also promote atheist propaganda through books, television, and film, such as the thinly veiled ''[[His Dark Materials]]'' trilogy and accompanying film ''[[The Golden Compass]]''.

=== Philosophy ===
In philosophy classes, atheists focus heavily on atheist and nihilist thinkers, especially [[Descartes]] and [[Nietzsche]], while ignoring far more important and influential Christian philosophers, such as [[St. Augustine]], [[Thomas Aquinas]], and [[Kant]], in an attempt to paint atheism as intellectual and faith as foolish.

== Undermining Religion ==
This is perhaps the broadest aspect of the atheist agenda. It involves activity in virtually all spheres of public discourse, but especially [[broadcast]] and [[print]] media, as well as higher educational institutions.<ref>http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81459</ref>

The primary route is through the liberal mainstream media, which routinely portrays religion and the faithful in a negative light. Pro-atheist and anti-religious articles are routinely printed in newspapers and magazines, and even letters to the editor are selected in a biased fashion. Portraying adherents of religion as intolerant, racist, or otherwise foolish is a key tactic in painting it in a negative manner.

Atheists and liberals are avidly attempting to discredit the impact of [[Providence]] in human [[history]] (see [[Essay:Liberal Denials about History| Liberal Denials about History]]), despite it being easily proven for centuries, since [[Francis Bacon|Bacon]] and [[John Foxe]], and its acceptance by the American [[founding fathers]].

== See Also ==
* [[Atheism]]
* [[Atheistic tools]]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Nb Atheism}}

[[category:atheism]]

Pseudoscientist

2009-01-11T16:57:41Z

RodWeathers: Redirecting to Pseudoscience

#REDIRECT [[Pseudoscience]]

Sigmund Freud

2009-01-11T16:57:07Z

RodWeathers:

[[Image:freud-thumb.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Freud in his laboratory]]
'''Sigmund Freud''' (1856–1939) was the founder of [[psychoanalysis]], an [[atheist]] and [[pseudoscientist]]. Despite the scientific rejection of most if not all of his theory, Freud remains powerfully influential among amoral and atheist scientists.

Jewish by birth, in 1938 he left fled Vienna and persecution by the [[Nazi]]s to North [[London]], [[England]], where he lived until his death in 1939.
{{cquote|Freud did more than perhaps any other man to insidiously conflate atheism with science, religion with mysticism, more than LaPlace, Darwin, or even Marx... While groundbreaking, his theories set back psychoanalysis for more than half a century.<ref>Gregory Zilboorg, ''Freud and Religion: a Restatement of an Old Controversy,'' 118. Statement written in the 1950s; Freud's psychoanalysis continues to be applied to the detriment of patients.</ref>}}

== Anti-religious works ==
Freud wrote two works disdainful of religion, ''Moses and Monotheism,'' and ''The Future of an Illusion.'' He concurred with [[Marx]] in regarding religion as the result of ignorance. For this reason, his work continues to be invoked by atheist elitist doctors who wish to treat [[faith]] as a mental illness.<ref>Gregory Zilboorg, ''Freud and Religion: a Restatement of an Old Controversy,'' 49.</ref> Along with Marx, he is seen as a founder of the modern [[atheist agenda|atheist political program]].

== Theories ==
Freud is best known for his theories of the [[unconscious mind]], especially involving the mechanism of [[repression]]; his symbolic interpretation of dreams; his redefinition of sexual desire as mobile and directed towards a wide variety of objects; and his therapeutic technique, especially his understanding of [[transference]] in the therapeutic relationship and the symbolic interpretation of dreams as sources of insight into [[unconscious desire]]s. <ref> [http://www.amazon.com/Unconscious-Before-Freud-Lancelot-Whyte/dp/0312828705 See also The Unconscious Before Freud, by Lancelot Law Whyte, 1979]</ref>

Freud proposed that the human [[psyche]] consists of three parts -- [[ego]], [[super-ego]], and [[id]] -- and that [[defense mechanism]]s are an attempt by the mind to resolve conflicts between the super-ego and the id. According to Freud's personality theory, the id represents the innate animal-like drives and instincts of the human being, consisting primarily of sexual and aggressive impulses. The super-ego consists of the learned rules and norms of the human being in their environment, derived from sources such as parental values, societal expectations, and religious teachings. When the id introduces impulses into the consciousness that are in conflict with the "rules" of the super-ego, anxiety can arise. For example, if one feels sexually attracted to the spouse of a family member, the super-ego promptly springs to action to remind us that these impulses are entirely unacceptable and offensive. The conflict between the id and the super-ego is thus born and the ego must resolve it or experience great anxiety.

== Pseudoscience ==
Freud's theories are viewed by some as unscientific because they lack [[falsifiability]], as pointed out by [[Karl Popper]].<ref>Popper, Karl R.: [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html 'Science as Falsification'], ''Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge'' (London, 1963) </ref> No one has ever been able to do any experiment that showed any merit to any of Freud's work. Freud lied about his own subjects to make it appear that his psychoanalysis had some benefit.<ref>"The verdict has been uniformly negative: Freud as a scientist, metapsychologist, and diagnostician of society emerges as a quack. This view has not greatly perturbed true believers." [http://human-nature.com/freud/tallis.html]</ref>

While Freud's theories have not withstood empirical testing, his therapeutic methods continue to have a lasting importance in psychotherapy. As recently as 1987 approximately 75% of practicing therapists relied on Freud's psychoanalytic ideas in therapy. (Pope, K.S., Tabachnick, B. & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1987). Ethics of practice: The beliefs and behaviors of psychologists as therapists. ''American Psychologist, 42,'' 993-1006). Among the techniques instituted by Freud that are still in use today are talk therapy (simply talking through problems), free association (allowing the client to say whatever comes to mind), and transference (promoting an emotional relationship between the therapist and client in order to aid in the healing process).

Much of Freud's psychosexual theories and his tripartite model have failed any empirical investigation. Psychoanalysis as a [[clinical psychology | clinical]] method has in many cases been shown to be as effective as other talk therapies,<ref>[http://ask.metafilter.com/99906/Different-types-of-therapy Different types of therapy]</ref>
but this is not likely to reflect the accuracy or inaccuracy of the underlying theories, but rather the positive effect of talking about one's problems.

Sigmund Freud died of maxillary [[cancer]] at the age of 82.

==World War II==
In order to prevent [[Nazis]] from banning psychoanalysis as "Jewish science", Sigmund Freud thought he needed a non-Jewish spokesperson for the psychoanalysis movement. He choose [[Carl Jung]], an early supporter who later diverged from Freud's [[psychiatric]] theories.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:psychologists|Freud, Sigmund]]
[[category:atheists]]