Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:Ryancsh

2021-04-08T20:54:39Z

Ryancsh:

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T22:05:32Z

Ryancsh:

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge its merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

:See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
::When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!"), suppressing or ignoring evidence against his cause as heretical or burgeoise, and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?") with stereotyped unrelated rebuttals - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Vivayeshua yet. His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
:Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Gentlemen, you picked a poor place to try to start the first atheist revival. Try wearing white shirts and knocking on people's doors and telling them about atheism/agnosticism. I think it would be more effective. But before you knock on people's doors, please prepare [[Essay: The question atheists fear|some proof and evidence why atheism is true]]. That should not take long to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::I'm not atheist at all: I'm Catholic! And a conservative, too. It's you who are a liability to the cause of Christianity and conservatism because evidently you can't debate and rely on communist, liberal, weak inefficient tactics! Face what Ryansch told and answer with pertinent arguments, instead of fearingly backing like a bunny in its hole! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:43, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::::Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Ergo to prove it to be true you must prove there is a lack of believe in a god. Ask me if I believe in God and we shall have proof.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 22:48, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

:::::Ryansch said this, above: ''"See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them."'' Unfortunately, it is you, Ryan, and you, Ronald, who refuse to even look at our points or even consider them. Since 2007 others have tried to engage in the same tactics, up to an including threats and bullying; never-mind the answers that we have posted in response. This "debate" is over and done with. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:All right, as you wish, but I'll note this as a win against Conservative, assuming now he'll learn some debating skills. Now I go back editing about Switzerland. See you! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:55, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

:::::Karajou, I have looked at every point given to me. Even when Markman called me a parodist I addressed the point even though it was false. Conservative has addressed few of my points and refuses to do so. I will Help User Conservative by showing him the points that he missed and looked over, (maybe he didn't mean to), But karajou, I want to know...what point has Conservative or anyone else said that I have not considered or discussed?

1."I do hold many values that would be socially conservative." I have made this point and Conservative refuses to even discuss it.
2."I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not" throughout our last debate, Conservative repeatedly labeled me a Darwinist and attempted to do so again.
3. The gumball Analogy which defined my position, which Conservative refuses to even acknowledge as a position. (actually, he effectively ignored the whole paragraph)
4. The idea that not all Atheists are on the left (I am living proof that they are not)
5. The accusation of sweeping generalization I have made.
6. What I am called, according to his own standard.

Karajou I have always held high respect for you in the past as you tend to actually answer any points raised to you. Of course we disagree on religious matters but surely you know that I have went down every irrelevant route he opened, even the link to the good person test. Tell me any point that I refuse to look at and consider and I will do so now, right here. If I did so, it was not my intention. You have treated me fairly in the past, especially when Markman attempted to ban me for my name, I ask that you do so again. To be honest, I would rather have this discussion with you. Then it would be an intellectual discussion and not the barrage of mud-slinging that this has descended to. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 23:04, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T22:04:41Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge its merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

:See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
::When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!"), suppressing or ignoring evidence against his cause as heretical or burgeoise, and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?") with stereotyped unrelated rebuttals - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Vivayeshua yet. His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
:Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Gentlemen, you picked a poor place to try to start the first atheist revival. Try wearing white shirts and knocking on people's doors and telling them about atheism/agnosticism. I think it would be more effective. But before you knock on people's doors, please prepare [[Essay: The question atheists fear|some proof and evidence why atheism is true]]. That should not take long to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::I'm not atheist at all: I'm Catholic! And a conservative, too. It's you who are a liability to the cause of Christianity and conservatism because evidently you can't debate and rely on communist, liberal, weak inefficient tactics! Face what Ryansch told and answer with pertinent arguments, instead of fearingly backing like a bunny in its hole! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:43, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::::Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Ergo to prove it to be true you must prove there is a lack of believe in a god. Ask me if I believe in God and we shall have proof.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 22:48, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

:::::Ryansch said this, above: ''"See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them."'' Unfortunately, it is you, Ryan, and you, Ronald, who refuse to even look at our points or even consider them. Since 2007 others have tried to engage in the same tactics, up to an including threats and bullying; never-mind the answers that we have posted in response. This "debate" is over and done with. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:51, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:All right, as you wish, but I'll note this as a win against Conservative, assuming now he'll learn some debating skills. Now I go back editing about Switzerland. See you! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:55, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

:::::Karajou, I have looked at every point given to me. Even when Markman called me a parodist I addressed the point even though it was false. Conservative has addressed few of my points and refuses to do so. I will Help User Conservative by showing him the points that he missed and looked over, (maybe he didn't mean to), But karajou, I want to know...what point has Conservative or anyone else said that I have not considered or discussed?
1."I do hold many values that would be socially conservative." I have made this point and Conservative refuses to even discuss it.
2."I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not" throughout our last debate, Conservative repeatedly labeled me a Darwinist and attempted to do so again.
3. The gumball Analogy which defined my position, which Conservative refuses to even acknowledge as a position. (actually, he effectively ignored the whole paragraph)
4. The idea that not all Atheists are on the left (I am living proof that they are not)
5. The accusation of sweeping generalization I have made.
6. What I am called, according to his own standard.
Karajou I have always held high respect for you in the past as you tend to actually answer any points raised to you. Of course we disagree on religious matters but surely you know that I have went down every irrelevant route he opened, even the link to the good person test. Tell me any point that I refuse to look at and consider and I will do so now, right here. If I did so, it was not my intention. You have treated me fairly in the past, especially when Markman attempted to ban me for my name, I ask that you do so again. To be honest, I would rather have this discussion with you. Then it would be an intellectual discussion and not the barrage of mud-slinging that this has descended to. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 23:04, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T21:48:15Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge it merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

:See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
::When I was a kid I also thought the Earth was flat and I staunchly believed grandpa was only sleeping (in a coffin) and would have woken back, eventually. That said, Conservative is like the Soviet Union in the '80s, when questioned about the famine. He keeps shifting from topic to topic evading the main question, proposing particular answers instead of the general ones ("As you can see, in this neighborhood in Moscow everybody eats to satiety!"), suppressing or ignoring evidence against his cause as heretical or burgeoise, and attacking the asker ("What about the famine in Africa, what has the West done?") with stereotyped unrelated rebuttals - I'm surprised he hasn't mentioned Vivayeshua yet. His debating tactics are indeed very communis and liberal.
:Conservative, have you ever heard about Mark Twain's saying, "He who fight monsters must take care lest he himself becomes a monster"? --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:10, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Gentlemen, you picked a poor place to try to start the first atheist revival. Try wearing white shirts and knocking on people's doors and telling them about atheism/agnosticism. I think it would be more effective. But before you knock on people's doors, please prepare [[Essay: The question atheists fear|some proof and evidence why atheism is true]]. That should not take long to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::I'm not atheist at all: I'm Catholic! And a conservative, too. It's you who are a liability to the cause of Christianity and conservatism because evidently you can't debate and rely on communist, liberal, weak inefficient tactics! Face what Ryansch told and answer with pertinent arguments, instead of fearingly backing like a bunny in its hole! --[[User:RonaldV|RonaldV]] 17:43, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::::Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Ergo to prove it to be true you must prove there is a lack of believe in a god. Ask me if I believe in God and we shall have proof.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 22:48, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T20:59:18Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge it merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T20:58:26Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge it merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, You wrote: "Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told." Children in atheistic Japan are not told the world is designed, but nevertheless researchers found they see the world as designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] Your argument broke down from the gitgo. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
See that is exactly what I am talking about, you refuse to even look at the opposition's points or even consider them. How can you possibly call yourself a conservative when you display such Liberal, bordering communist, tactics is beyond me. How about actually acting like a conservative and having an intellectual conversation like the rest of the right-wing world? and on your point, I don't think you can exactly call children the fore-runners in metaphysical philosophy. If they believe that a magical man can fit down a chimney then I don't argue that they could believe that a magical man could create the world and then send people to hell simply because they do not worship his every trait (which in my mind is egotistical but whatever)[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:58, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T20:30:00Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
[[Image:Cherry Blossom Japan.jpg|thumb|250px|Even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] ]]
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge it merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, you said, "I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity". You have admitted to lying before. Have you lied multiple times? The reason I ask is the even in atheistic [[Japan]], researchers found that Japanese children see the world [[Intelligent design|as designed]].[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] I have I hard time believing you can't see it too - especially since you told me that you lied before. “The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" - [[Jeremiah]] 17:9 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::: Firstly, Children believe whatever they are told. The fact that a child believes in Santa does not make Santa real the same way how a child seeing the world to be designed does not make it so. Onto the lying, I really do not know what you are trying to say. I guarantee that at sometime in your life, you have lied on an occasion. It's a logical impossibility that you have not. Yet I do not treat everything you say to be a lie. Now, are you seriously suggestion that I am not an Atheist? Cons, I find it hard to believe that you know what intellectual forum and debate is. Not only do you refuse to acknowledge the points of your opposition, you have just attempted to claim that your opposition doesn't even exist. You claim that Atheists are gullible but if you truly believe that you have no opposition and that everyone thinks the same way you do, then I suggest you have a self-diagnosis of yourself. I remember in the last debate we had, you ended it per-maturely without acknowledging most of my points and skipping to go-to responses. Oh and Cons, the fact that you can't argue without a captioned picture or a hyperlink to some other section or website, says a large about the strength of your argument. I am really trying not to be overly harsh, but you are being purposefully antagonistic and it is actually reminding me of Labour Leader Gorden Brown when he was on televised debate.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T19:30:53Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== global atheism is shrinking - newest data ==

Global atheism is shrinking - newest data:

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/global-study-atheists-decline-only-18-world-population-2020

http://www.christianpost.com/news/study-world-is-turning-more-religious-atheism-declining-100518/

Incorporate into article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:59, 9 August 2013 (EDT)

==Politics==
Cons, why is it that we only have an "[[Atheism and communism]]" Section here? Remember the page Atheism and Politics? Surely we should have a section here that redirects to that ( and that section affirms that Atheists are in all variety of political colors) or we include "Atheism and Liberalism" and "Atheism and Conservatism" into this page. Though I was thinking of creating a page for the Latter two...thoughts? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:34, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
:Why are you asking me something you already know the answer to? I am assuming that you are intelligent to know that [[communism]] is a subset of politics.

:And it was and is a very significant subset. For example, according to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] And atheistic communist China/Korea have a significant amount of people under atheist leaders who still persecute people (including Christians) of religions other than the [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]].[http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/february-web-only/persecution-in-china-is-very-real.html][http://www.persecution.org/2013/06/24/china-still-persecuting-christians-just-better-at-hiding-it/]

:Your complaint helps illustrate that many atheists have a penchant for engaging in the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. Please stop engaging in childish and unwarranted gamesmanship. It confirms in people's minds that atheism is a illegitimate and false religion practiced by unreasonable and deceitful people. See: [[Atheism and deception]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::Ever hear of the term "swing and a miss"? You have completely ignored my point and have somehow made your own. My point was about the fallacy of exclusion as you have excluded all evidence that does not fit into your personal vendetta against atheism. Now onto your point, I am not denying that Marxism/Leninism proponents were Atheists. I am denying the claim that All Atheists are on the left or that everything you say is true of all Atheists. I am living proof that Atheists can be on the right wing as is David Hume and Ayn Rand. (and I know what you are about to say about David Hume and let me stop you there. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Personally I am an Agnostic-Atheist). Now, on a more personal note, I find it farcical that you would call Atheism childish and then instantly start name-calling and mud-slinging. Now, I am not about to go down the line of you calling me an "unreasonable and deceitful" person because I'll just see the benefit of the doubt and hope that you didn't mean me. If you did, then you have just proven yourself to be unreasonable and almost insecure because you can't seem to be secure in your own belief unless everyone else around you believes it. You know, an original tenet of the Republican Party (In the USA) was a policy called Pluralism, also known as "let the people have their faith" (and lack of it). You seem to be defying old conservative tenets with your insistence of trying to stamp out or omit anyone who does not think exactly like you. There is a difference between logical debate with reasoned argument and your policy of mud-slinging. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 18:52, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
Ryancsh, first, do you hold to [[social conservatism]]? Are you pro-life? What are your thoughts on [[homosexuality]]? Setting aside the issue of whether or not there should be public schools. as far as religious freedom, do you think that school prayer should be allowed in public schools? Should public school valedictorians be allowed to speak about their Christian faith at high school commencements? Do you think that the teaching of evolution should be mandatory in public schools? In private schools?

Next, at the apex of the [[New Atheism]], the [[User: Conservative]] account did largely create the extensive Conservapedia article on atheism. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that I have a vendetta against atheism. Currently, [[global atheism]] is shrinking and there is sound scholarship indicating that this shrinking will accelerate. I regard the [[Atheism is a religion|atheist religion]] somewhat similar to other errant religions in the past which waned such as Baal worship or ancient Roman religions with the caveat that it probably will not completely die out as far as adherents until the Second Coming of Christ due to doubt being a part of the human condition since the [[Fall of man]]. Atheism is intellectually dead though. For example, prominent atheists/evolutionists unwilling to debate evolution and previously losing their series of debates in the 1970s (see: [[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]).

In addition, in order to have a vendetta against something you have to think about it often. And as of late, although there is a persistent atheist who wants to garner my attention (who is afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]]) and other atheists who want to grab my attention, I am spending less and less time thinking about the topic atheism. Not only is the religion of atheism foolish and errant, but I am agreeing more and more with the sentiments of [[John Updike]] who remarked that "Among the repulsions of atheism for me has been its drastic un-interestingness as an intellectual position. Where was the ingenuity, the ambiguity, the humanity of saying that the universe just happened to happen and that when we're dead we're dead?". However, there were recently a few matters that wanted to add to Conservapedia's content about atheism as I thought they were germane (incorporation a politics section into the atheism article which I promised someone that I would do and the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article). In short, why think much about a religion that is foolish, dying at an increasing rate and uninteresting (and the atheist religion has all three attributes)?

By the way, it seems as if [[Shockofgod]] is less interested in the topic of atheism as well. He is doing less videos on atheism as of late. Also, although [[Mariano Grinbank]], the author of [http://creation.com/atheism this extensive online article on atheism] featured at [[Creation Ministries International]], still writes about atheism, he may be writing about it less often relative to other [[Christian apologetics]] topics he writes about it. See: [http://www.examiner.com/worldview-and-science-in-national/mariano-grinbank?page=1 Worldview and science Examiner]. So it seems as if many people are less interested in atheism since the apex of the [[New Atheism]] (interest in the New Atheism and [[Richard Dawkins]] is a shadow of its former self).[http://www.conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins%27_loss_of_influence]

Lastly, I made a suggestion that you create an article on the [[secular right]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:24, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

:To Answer your first point, I do hold many values that would be socially conservative. My work on the [[Abortion and adoption]] article and my interest in pro-life campaigns within the Conservative Party would indicate that I am Pro-Life. On the topic of School Prayer, I have always thought that it should be at a schools discretion or that the parents in a public-school's catchment area should decide. Having said that, I support an op-out system for students who are not Christian (i.e. Jewish, Muslim, Atheist) but that the minority should not rule over the rights of the majority. (Pluralism, which I hold, agrees with a dominate culture and religion so long as it allows other cultures and religions to exist peacefully). I am actually in favor of not teaching anything that is not scientific fact. Natural selection should be taught and students should be made aware that Evolution the origin of species is a theory based of the idea of natural selection over millions of years. Apart from that, I really don't care. As I have mentioned before, evolution is not my subject. My position (in terms of Atheism) is "You have not convinced me that your claim of a God is true. As such, I will not believe it as I have seen no good evidence for such an extraordinary claim." Private schools should reserve the right to teach what they wish so long as they can get their pupils to pass exams.

:Now, I think that the fact that the vast majority of Articles with the Title "Atheism And____" are either created by you or are severely edited by your or are only ever edited by you (one of the three) kind of shows that you have a fixation on Atheism. For what reason, I do not know. Now, I would highly dispute the claim that Atheism is a religion, but I do not think this is the place to do it. What I would advise you to do, would be to stop trying to pigeon-hole all Atheists. That is severe generalization (which in the UK is seen as trait of the Socialist Labour Party)and should be stopped. I am not sure how it works in the USA, but in the UK, Conservatives believe in setting out a well-defined argument with well-defined logical reasoning ( not overly-quoting or using arguments from authority) so that those who are listen arive to their own conclusion rather than us having to force-feed it. I think that if you applied that to Atheism Articles, they would seem a lot more intellectly rounded. I say this because, from my perspective at least, the current Article seems more like a highly aggravated rant on Atheism in general.

:Also, I will write that Article when I have time...assuming Conservapedia doesn't lock me out again. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:25, 10 August 2013 (GMT)
::Ryancsh, true conservatives believe in liberty and because you believe that Darwinism, an unsupported tenet of your religion of agnosticism/atheism, should be mandatory and paid for by taxpayers, this helps show me that you are not a true conservative. And I strongly believe that you are unwilling and afraid to debate [[VivaYehshua]] on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists.

::Lastly, like many atheist criticisms of [[User: Conservative]] account material on atheism, you were vague and were not specific. You certainly did not point out a single factual error in the [[atheism]] article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::Ryancsh, one other thing, how many people have edited using the [[User: Conservative]] account? How many people have edited atheism related content using the User: Conservative account? No true skeptic would insist that [[User: Conservative]] account editing was merely the work of one person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:20, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay let's get this straightened out right now. Because I am sick and tired of your farcical accusations of Atheism being a religion with Darwinism as a tenet. Atheism and Darwinism have nothing in common other than the fact that certain high profile Atheists ( like Richard Dawkins) accept Darwinism as true. I find it almost repulsive that you would label me as a Darwinist when I am not. It shows the lack of logic in your argument if you have to resort to calling me things which I am not. and I said that it should be said as a theory, the same way how creationism is said as a theory. And I am afraid? Do you not get the fact that I am not a Darwinist? I mean, discrediting your opposition is one thing, but completely ignoring their argument and resorting to "go-to" lines is naive and shows that you can't debate properly. If you wanted an intellectual debate, actually address my points rather than just ignore them and make up your own. That is a Liberal tactic. I know I am being overly-harsh, but I have a pet-peeve against being labeled things which I am not. Now, you want me to be specific, I was addressing the whole article in general. It has the tone of a rant. There is no reasoned or balanced argument. You complain that Atheists are Liberals, well I have to say that I don't blame American Atheists if they have to put up with the ridicule of this article. There is not a single reference to any positive aspect of Atheism, nor is there any reference to Conservative Atheists apart from a slight reference to Ayn Rand. The reason why Atheists on the right are more common in other countries (such as South Korea where the leader of the Conservative Party was an Atheist) is because the religious right, which I make an educated guess that you are a part of, do not have the same hatred of Atheism that you possess. I have to quote Plato's Republic (p89 of Wordsworth's edition)

:"To hurt one's natural friends is to invite unnatural enemies stronger than oneself." Atheists on the right are your natural Allies because we are both on the right, yet you have shown no comradeship to your natural allies but rather have turned your back on us for some motive that I do not understand. Now let me ask you a question Conservative, since you are so fond of them, When you say there is a God, I say I don't believe since you have not proved it. I do not offer any other argument just that I find your argument faulty and cannot believe it simply because you said so. As such, I do not believe in a god, yet I do not accept the Anti-theist belief that there is no god. Just that I do not know and I do not believe based on the lack of evidence provided. By your standard, What am I? I call myself Atheist from the lack of belief, but you seem to have perverted the meaning into a religious context. So what would you call someone who refuses to believe an extraordinary claim based on the lack of evidence? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 2:26, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

::Ryancsh, are you a creationist then? If not, what third position do you hold if you are not an evolutionist? I have found that so-called atheists/agnostics are awful silent when I ask them what is the third position. By the way, just when I thought I was pretty much done with the atheism article, you inspired [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Denials_that_atheists_exist this section]. Do you like the Japanese picture I chose and the caption under it?

::Second, if you are against socialism, I think that is excellent. By the way, socialism appears to be a causal factor for atheism. See: [[Causes of atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
:::By the way, I did notice that you were silent on my question about homosexuality. For someone who is supposedly a true conservative and social conservative, your silence is most conspicuous. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:48, 10 August 2013 (EDT)

::::I thought we had already went over this. I am not a creationist or an evolutionist. Have you heard of the Gumball analogy? I'll shorten it down for you. If I have a gumball machine on my desk, and you are in my room and I tell you that the number of Gumballs in the machine is even. Do you believe me based on just what I have said? You have no evidence that the number of gumballs is even and I have not given you sufficient evidence to prove it. If you do not believe me, then you are taking an Atheist approach. Now, just because you do not believe that the number is even...does that mean that you must believe that it is odd? No. It just means that the claim you have been given does not have enough evidence to make you believe it to be true. In fact, the opposite claim would have the same problem of lack of evidence. By rejecting one, you are not automatically agreeing with another. The same can be said for evolution vs creationism. Neither side has proven to be scientific fact and, after consulting the evidence, I am not going to say that I believe either side to be true without conclusive proof. I treat everything with the same decree of Falsifiability (a trait of a theory where it can be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true). Falsificationism questions theories instead of proving them or others.

::::Now I have read you causes of atheism article, and I have to say that not a single one fits me. You don't have a very comprehensive article if you don't even mention the cause which I always saw as most prominent (and almost certainly applies to me) : Lack of belief due to the lack of evidence presented.

:::: Onto the question on Homosexuality, my position has always been against same-sex marriage. I believe that marriage is a tradition of one man, one woman, one life. For that reason I am also against divorce except for cases with exceptional circumstances (mainly being domestic abuse). I quite like Ann Coulter's idea of "Don't ask Don't tell for all of society" because I don't think that sexual orientation should even be an issue. I have always took the line of "What you do behind closed doors is not my concern, but try to shove it down my throat and you will soon have me as an opponent." Oh an on the issue of school prayer, as you are a Christian, should you not be against school prayer? I am pretty sure it says in the bible:

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him". Matthew 6:5-8.

Which essentially says don't pray in public but pray in private and not to have repeated prayer. Now, I have made my view clear that I think it should be up to either the School or the Parents with an Op-out system for those who do. I am just curious that you would support something that your own bible condemns. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:52, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:Ryancsh, atheists typically do a poor job at [[Bible exegesis]]. The Bible is against ostentatious prayer used to gain attention and as a means to foist on others the notion that you are godly, but it is not against group prayer.[http://www.openbible.info/topics/praying_together]

:Second, none of those [[causes of atheism]] apply to you? Have you ever told a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:21, 11 August 2013 (EDT)

::Okay are we going to have to go through these? Oh fun: 1. Moral Depravity: I think that we have both agreed that I have the morals of a social conservative on the vast majority of matters. 2.Hatred towards God: How can I hate what I do not think exists?. 3.Atheistic Upbringing: My mother was a fundamentalist Catholic, My father a Methodist so no. 4.Rebellion: to "ignore the reality" God's existence would first have to be proved to be reality, which it is not and so I am not rebelling against reality. 5.Hedonism: I am not a hedonist and certainly no materialist, considering that I am a Conservative Ideologue. Hedonism has "the idea that pleasure is the highest good"...I think Loyalty is the highest good. 6. Gullibility: this is a logical paradox. Atheists are skeptics of an extravagant claim by Christians. Skepticism is an Antonym of gullibility. 7. Irrational Thinking: I don't believe in the supernatural and, considering I am a conservative, my ideological tenets are highly rational. 8.Superficiality: I am a member of a political party which is dominated by Anglicans. It would be more superficial for me to be an Anglican than an Atheist. Also, there is no superficial reason for me to be an Atheist. 9. Error: I have considered the facts, just we arrived at different conclusions. You do realize it is possible to know something just as much as you and still not agree with you. 10. State churches: How is this even a cause? I think this is unrelated correlation, a bit like saying "100% of people who die have drank water in their lives, as such water is responsible for the majority of deaths." 11.Decline of family in a culture: I had a very strong family culture and still believe in the traditional family unit. 12.Socialism: did we not just define that I hate Socialism? 13.Self Deception and 14. Satanic Deception: No and no. I checked the reference and found nothing on that site that had anything to do with me. 15. Poor relationship with Father: My relationship with my father was brilliant actually. He's the one who got me interested in politics and gave me my Conservative realist reasoning. 16:Division in religion: How is this even a cause? I have never heard of someone becoming an Atheist because religion was divided, and if there was someone who did I would tell them to wise up, get a grip and to not over-react to religious theological debate. 17.Ignorance: I managed to get good enough grades (an A, the highest grade for the exam, in the entrance exam) to get into a private school (at the time the Catholic Church funded the School, those with good enough grades got in for free) and maintained those grades throughout my time. 18.Indoctrination and ease of life: Catholic School was not secularized. The only indoctrination there was them attempting to indoctrinate me into being a Catholic. 19. Lack Of Knowledge: this is the same as the Ignorance argument. I don't know what you decided to put it in twice. 20. Negative experiences with Theists: In the UK people are very accepting of Atheism and most don't care. The only negative interaction I have ever experienced has been with you and your rants.21.Scientism: I reject through lack of logical evidence, not through replacing religious theology with scientific theory.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:05, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
:::Ryancsh, you didn't answer my two simple questions. Did you ever tell a lie? Can you pass this good person test? See: [http://www.livingwaters.com/good/ Good person test]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:03, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
::::Have I ever told A lie? Of course. Last time I told a lie would depend on your definition of a lie, be is Platonic, Socratic, Militius ect. Can I pass that test, after doing that test (which is a heavily loaded test and I disagree with the name. It should be "are you a good christian test") I found that there is not a pass at the end, just a christian rant about how I will burn in hell for my sins, nothing which I haven't heard before. I still do not see how this applies to causes of Atheism. If you are going to use that test as the sole indicator, then everyone not part of the Judeo-Christian religion would be an Atheist. and that would be the majority of earth.

And you didn't answer my Question. Would you see me as an Atheist even though I do not follow the supposed "tenets" of the "religion". You effectively avoided any reference to what I am considering my mere existence defies this article and your idea that all atheists are Liberal-commie-Darwinists. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:36, 11 August 2013 (GMT)
::Why don't you tell me what your third option is so we can all judge it merit. We have creationism which advocates supernatural origins and evolutionism which advocates naturalistic origins. So tell us your third option. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 11 August 2013 (EDT)
:::I answered this. I do not bring forward a third option, I simply say that neither have enough evidence to convince me of their validity. Re-read the gumball analogy, I think you missed the point of it. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20:30, 11 August 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T18:39:43Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

Facebook

2013-08-11T15:33:58Z

Ryancsh: /* Censorship and harassment by Facebook */

[[Image:Newfacebooklogo3.jpg|thumb|Facebook logo|right]]
'''Facebook''' (stylized '''facebook''') is a [[liberal]]-promoted [[social networking]] website that profits by exploiting personal information in users' profiles, and by advertising. Users can spend, or indeed waste, their time on it in a variety of ways: by uploading pictures (typically of themselves), by gossiping about others, by talking to friends, by interfering with marriages and personal relationships, and by acting like a [[busybody]]. Facebook use is correlated with underachievement in school and disruption of social relationships, such as marriage. For many teenagers, Facebook use replaces healthier activities and gatherings.

Despite being called "social networking," Facebook is typically a poor substitute for real social networking. One survey conducted showed that Facebook feeds narcissistic tendencies.

Other studies done have shown that the use of Facebook is associated with poorer performance in school. Facebook use is also associated with a substantial percentage of marital problems and an increase in psychological disorders in youth.<ref>[http://thetechjournal.com/internet/facebook-is-the-new-cause-of-divorce.xhtml#ixzz1OmdIs3rN Facebook is the new cause of divorce, The Tech Journal, December 23, 2009]</ref><ref>[http://technorati.com/social-media/article/facebook-linked-to-psychological-disorders-in/ Facebook Linked To Psychological Disorders In Teens]</ref> The site is heavily promoted by [[liberal]]s, presumably because it is so unproductive or even counterproductive.

Activities on Facebook have caused people to be fired from their jobs.

Anybody with an account can create an unlimited amount of unproductive pages, which can then be "liked" by other users.

Facebook is based in Palo Alto, [[California]]. The name of the site is based on the paper facebooks that many colleges give to incoming students, faculty, and staff depicting members of the campus community.<ref> [http://www.associatepublisher.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook] </ref>

==Monetary value==
It is rumored that Facebook generates around $1 million per week in revenue. <ref>[http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/04/26/facebook-goes-beyond-college-high-school-markets/ "Facebook goes beyond college and high school markets"]</ref>
In September 2006, [[Yahoo]] began talks to acquire Facebook for as high as $1 billion. In October, Google allegedly offered $2.3 billion.<ref>[http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2006/10/10/first-youtube-now-facebook-rumors-circulate "First Youtube, Now Facebook: Rumors Circulate"]</ref> All outside offers have been rejected. 2009 estimates put a net value of $6.5 billion. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10285409-36.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 Facebook stock trading open; valuation $6.5 billion] CNET News, July 13, 2009</ref> 2010 estimates of the privately held company put the value at $14 billion dollars. <ref>[http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/20/facebook-valued-at-14-billion-on-secondmarket/ Facebook Valued At $14 Billion On SecondMarket, TechCrunch.com, January 20, 2010]</ref>

In 2011, [[Goldman Sachs]] invested $500 million in Facebook. JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley was put in charge of an initial public offering of Facebook stock in 2012. The company went public at $38-per-share IPO price valued Facebook at $104 billion. <ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-facebook-forecasts-idUSBRE84L06920120522 Insight: Morgan Stanley cut Facebook estimates just before IPO, Reuters.com, May 22, 2012]</ref> As of August 2012, the company is trading down at $20 per share, a loss of $50 billion in value. As of January 2013, the stock has rebounded slightly and is trading at $30 per share, however this still represents a loss of $25 billion in value.
It is now possible to message the founder, Mark Zuckerberg, for approximately $100. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57563563/facebook-testing-$100-charge-to-message-zuckerberg/ Facebook charging $100 to send a message to founder Mark Zuckerberg]</ref>

==Origins==
Facebook was founded in February 2004 by [[Harvard]] sophomores [[Mark Zuckerberg]], Chris Hughes, Dustin Moskovitz and Eduardo Saverin, with help from Andrew McCollum. By December of 2004, after expanding the site to other universities, the number of registered users exceeded one million. In August 2005 Facebook obtained the domain name facebook.com and dropped the "the" from the site's name.

==2010==
A movie was made about the origins of Facebook, called ''The Social Network''. The film did not meet expectations at the [[Academy Awards]] and, despite heavy media promotion, was number one in America for only several weeks. Mark Zuckerberg was not involved in the creation of film and said that it was more Hollywood storytelling than reality.

It has been known among Silicon Valley technology companies that Facebook has been luring away [[Google]] employees to the extent that Google is now offering bonuses for staying with the company. On October 15, 2010, Facebook announced the release of a new email client. Internally referred to as Titan, the media has dubbed it a "Gmail Killer". Zuckerberg insists it is not a head-to-head competitor of Google's Gmail service; rather, it will be more of a instant messaging service. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/15/gmail-beware-facebook-unveils-e-mail-service/ E-MAIL WAR: Facebook Launches 'Gmail Killer' -- AOL Jumps In, Too, FOX News, November 15, 2010]</ref>

==Liberal policies==
The world's largest online social network added civil unions and domestic partnerships to the list of relationships that its users can pick from to best describe their romantic status. The [[Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation]] had lobbied for the policy adoption. The option is only available to Facebook users in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Australia. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/02/18/facebook-adds-support-sex-civil-unions Facebook Adds Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions, Fox News, February 18, 2011</ref>

98% of political donations from Facebook employees went to [[Barack Obama]] in the 2008 presidential election. <ref>[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/684/994/Facebook_self_appointed_arbiter_of_free_speech_tells_Tea_Party_no_more_organizing.html Facebook – self appointed arbiter of “free speech” – tells Tea Party no more organizing, Before It's News, June 2, 2011]</ref>

==Christian Presence==
Despite these liberal policies and promotion, the wave of Christianity is overwhelming. A quick and simple search reveals that the main Christianity page has more members than all the atheist pages combined.

==Conservative Groupings==
While Facebook does have a pro-liberal agenda, this has not stopped conservative groups and pages forming. The [[Conservative Party]] as well as the [[Tea Party Movement]] have created pages. A search of the pages reveals that, when comparing the "likes" system on facebook, both the Tea Party and the Tea Party Patriots dominate more liberal pages such as "Gay marriage USA" and even the political ideology page "Liberal"

==Censorship and harassment by Facebook==

Ongoing censorship and harassment by Facebook is documented at [http://www.facebookcensorship.com facebookcensorship.com] with screenshots. Also documented is the wholesale destruction of groups that took some people years to build by Facebook's deleting all of the members. Facebook then deleted the discussion areas from "pages" to further their control and censorship.

Facebook temporarily banned Fox News reporter Todd Starnes for not being a liberal, giving the reason that his "politically incorrect" post violated community guidelines. <ref>[http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2013/06/29/fascist-facebook-bans-fox-reporter-todd-starnes-for-politically-incorrect-nra-post/ Fascist Facebook bans Fox reporter Todd Starnes, FireAndreamitchell.com, jUNE 29, 2013]</ref>

==Privacy issues==
Facebook Privacy Policy is constantly changing. This is not for the benefit of the users but to the monetary value they represent to advertisers. Due to the size of Facebook, all kinds of data on your habits are monitored. Not just by Facebook either, the government can peek at your life and monitor you behind the scenes. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/13-year-old-boy-questioned-secret-service-facebook-posting/?test=latestnews 13-Year-Old Boy Questioned by Secret Service Over Facebook Posting, Fox News, May 17, 2011]</ref> <ref>[http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/article_bbd23382-6ecf-11e0-aeef-001a4bcf6878.html Feds mine Facebook for info, STLToday.com, April 25, 2011]</ref> Facebook claims your personal information is not for sale. They make the case that it is anonymously collected data, thereby protecting your privacy. Third parties develop applications to run on top of Facebook. Your privacy is effectively in the hands of unknown organizations. The below examples include what information is on display by every user.

* 6 million Facebook members had their data exposed after management found a glitch that inadvertently shared personal contact details with other members. <ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57590528-93/facebook-bug-exposed-contact-info-of-6m-users/ Facebook bug exposed contact info of 6M users, CNET.com June 21st, 2013]</ref>
* Many users post their full address, e-mail address, birthday, and telephone number, and these can be available to their entire network (and, in reality, anyone). This information in the wrong hands can be used for purposes of phishing, stalking, or even identity theft.
* Some universities have begun to use students' pages to investigate underage drinking and other violations of university policy. This is very possible, since university faculty and staff can sign up for the same network as their students through their campus e-mail account.<ref> [http://en.allexperts.com/e/f/fa/facebook.htm Facebook on allexperts.com]</ref>
*The so-called "news feed" has aroused some discomfort among Facebook users, as it displays all changes and status updates from their friends by default.
*The "wall" feature allows a user to post a message to another user which remains on their profile page. This posting is viewable to everyone who can view the page (which is pretty much the entire world), and shows up on the news feed for all friends of both the sender and the recipient by default.
*As with Google ads, Facebook collects profile information, and places ads on the page that reflect the user's personal information. This resulted in one man logging into his facebook account, and seeing his wife's photograph appear in an advertisement for a dating website.<ref> [http://www.kvoa.com/news/husband-finds-wife-in-facebook-singles-ad/] Husband finds wife in facebook singles ad</ref>
*The privacy settings on Facebook give users a false sense of security and encourage people to post things they shouldn't. As with other social networks, Facebook refuses to admit that its privacy settings that apparently allow only "friends" to see certain information are completely bogus and can easily be cracked by people with little to no [[hacking]] experience. Instead, Facebook actually ''encourages'' young users to only allow "friends" to see certain information, rather than just warning them that what they post can be seen by the world and to not post what they wouldn't want people to see.<ref>
[http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2008/01/myspace_torrent This is why only a fool would trust any social networking platform to keep any information private]</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Wepluribus]] (conservative alternative to Facebook)
* [[Social media]]
* [[Twitter]]
* [[MySpace]]
* [[Google Plus | Google+]]

== External links ==

*[http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=175839 The increasing amount of personal information that can been gleaned by computer programs that track how people use Facebook]

*[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/fashion/weddings/chris-hughes-sean-eldridge-weddings.html Chris Hughes married his partner Sean Eldridge.] The gay co-founder of Facebook.

*[http://www.facebookcensorship.com/ Political and religious censorship and harassment by Facebook]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Online social networking]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T15:05:16Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T12:52:35Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-11T01:26:49Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-10T19:56:30Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-10T17:52:51Z

Ryancsh: /* Politics */

Talk:Atheism and politics

2013-08-10T14:51:50Z

Ryancsh:

Conservative, do you mind if I move the Bara Group point in with Atheism on the Left? I feel that it would do more justice there rather than in the introduction since it mainly applies to Atheists on the left and not Atheists who are social conservatives of whom I have mentioned. Oh, and on that note, why did you place Atheism and the left on the top? Surely at conservapedia one would talk about conservatism before mentioning communism. I always thought that it is an admission of failure if you have to mention ideological opponents before talking about your own ideological strengths (in this case, conservatism) [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 1:57AM, 10 July 2013 (GMT)
::Historically, most atheists have tilted more to the left than the right and I cited some data supporting this matter. Also, much of secular Europe, most of internet atheism, history of socialism/communism, etc. supports this matter as well.

::re: social conservatism: Provide sufficient data to support your contention that such a demarcation is warranted. Like not cherry picking and practicing the [[fallacy of exclusion]]. The only data I am aware of that might be related to this is a study indicating that atheists raised by Christians (I do not recall if they were a certain type of Christian such as evangelical) or who have lived in a Christianized area give more to charity than the atheists who do not share these characteristics. See the video: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imuaiRO5mSQ&feature=sub Christians give more to charity video]. I am guessing they might have more [[social conservatism]] too. But that is just a educated guess.

::I do know that that the atheist [[Ayn Rand]] said selfishness is a virtue and Christians such as [[Chuck Colson]] have taken exception to Christians touting some of her works. Ayn Rand is considered to be on the political right. I really haven't studied Rand or her works to a great extent. Although Rand expressed some doubt about Darwinism, I am guessing that some atheists on the political right are against big government because they hold to [[Social Darwinism]].

::Lastly, I have some people depending on me to accomplish some things in the next couple of months and I am afraid I don't have time for extensive discussion/wrangling on this subject. You largely saying you "feel" something is warranted leads me to believe that attempting to work with you to have a representative article could be difficult. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:18, 9 July 2013 (EDT)

:::Okay, thanks to connection issues (mostly the IP address fiasco) I have only seen this now. Firstly, you haven't answered my question. you have also ignored the point that, as conservatives on a webite that is duly named "conservapedia", it is only logical to mention conservative Atheists first since we are ideological allies. Oh and yes Atheists on the right are against big government but not because of that. I am against big government simply because I see it as illogical and ineffective. Most Atheists on the secular right or just the right (there are moralist Atheists ((the Pan-slavic party in Russia from 1800s-1920s was a moralistic party founded and effectively run by Atheists)) ). Lastly, don't nit-pick words. I used the term "feel" to sound less hostile against the idea that Communists should come before Conservatives as to try to keep this conversation civil. So, could we try to keep this conversation civil for a bit longer? After all, we are ideological allies, especially on the economical front. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 15:51, 10 August 2013 (GMT)

Talk:Atheism

2013-08-10T14:35:08Z

Ryancsh:

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-07-10T14:17:51Z

Ryancsh:

Perhaps a British Consevative article. Free Market, Euro sceptic and downright no to the Euro. Support for the Royal Family. Support for the UK in its present state. Respect for unions as long as they stay within their remit, opposition to militant unions. opposition to over regulation and the nanny state, In most cases at least support for the NHS. Support for tighter immigration control, which is not racist, the majority of immigrants over the last decade have been white Europeans. At least nominal support for the CofE as an integral part of our history(England specific i know). Maintaining the House of Lords.
Anything you can add?

I would add that there is a split in British conservatism that dates back since the formation of the conservative party in 1834 between Conservatives and Tories.Tories orginally came from the landed gentry while the Conservatives were Capitalist and Middle class. This divide is almost settled by now but, as of the 1980s there was a second divide that still exists today. This involves the Wets, who are fiscally but not socially conservative, and the "True Blues" who are both fiscally and socially conservative. The Current leadership under Cameron is on the wet side while the grassroots conservatives and backbenchers and some Cabinet members (think T. May) are "True Blues". The "True blues" are like American republicans as we stick to old ideological policies. We are mainly pro-capital and corporal punishment. Very anti-court of human rights, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage (200 backbenchers rebelling due to the bill), we support privatization of PARTS of the NHS...in that we believe A&E should definitely stay free as well as GP's but everything else is not a priority, high respect for family values as well as a very pro-military, almost jingoist, outlook. I volunteer for the party and am a regular party activist and I can tell you that the majoirty of Party activists feel the same way [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20/05/2013 16:16GMT

Good points, I see the leaders since 1990 as this, Major:Wet,
Hague: wet. IDS: damp. Howard: dry. Cameron wet

From an Activist point of view, I would disagree with Hague and IDS. Hague is a "True Blue" but is having serious problems showing that inside his Cabinet position due to the party line that Cameron is pumping out. While he was leader, he got thrown under the bus by the wets who were starting to get hooks into the main party. He attempted to follow Thatcherite policies but Tony Blair's populism was too much to take on for the quite young Hague at the time. IDS isn't damp, he's a political chameleon. He mostly stays in the "true blue" camp but he's definitely the left of it. Imagine a mini political spectrum inside the "True Blues" [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 20/05/2013 18:25GMT

==Hello, Mr. Cash==

Can you please enlighten me as to the relation between your username and internet joke "Ryan Cash"? Also, please explain to me why I shouldn't ban you on the spot for being a parodist. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:28, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
== Blockings by Markman ==
So far, your edits have not warranted a block. I will be working with Markman about these unacceptable blocks. Please accept my apologies on behalf of the administration here. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

No worries, however, what I want to know is why I was almost banned for outside information(namely an internet joke I have never heard of) when conservapedia clearly states that it does not ban users for freedom of speech outside conservapedia or for any activity associated outside it. I believe it is brought up in the conservapedia vs Wikipedia section. I would not go as far to suggest that it is ignoring a key Conservative tenet, that is freedom of speech, but it does confuse me.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 21:19, 6 June 2013 (GMT)

== Congratulations ==

On your new priviledges! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 12 June 2013 (EDT)

Thanks Brendan! [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19:07, 12 June 2013 (GMT)

==No unblocking of suspected editors for now==

This is only temporary as an emergency measure. This should be referred to someone with a checkuser, if the'll be found to be clean the blocks should removed. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 08:55, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

All of the Vandals have had suspicious usernames. DannyH and NigelM do not and, in fact, are in line with our user name policy. Personally I'd rather wait and see if they are vandals or not and then just block and, if they are remove any vandalism they do. After all, it could just be really bad timing for them to join.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13:57, 25 June 2013 (GMT)

:I prefer not to as this would entail unblocking their IP addressees, which might also be the vandal's IP. If we unblock his IP he would be able to register new socks here. Keep in mind that one of the recent vandals, JessicaS, also had a normal username in line with CP policy. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:04, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

::On the topic of blocking, I would ask the reason for Blocking EG. Conservapedia does not block for ideological reasons and, after reading his contributions, he has not said anything that would resemble trolling. he has been relatively civil and has sourced claims he has made on articles.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 14:07, 25 June 2013 (GMT)

:::His praise for Lebron is obviously due to Conservapedia's assessment of him as an overrated sportstar. Obvious troll is obvious. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:11, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

::::Or it could be because he actually believes that LeBron deserves the praise he gets. I suggest doing what British Conservatives do, in that if you don't agree with what he says confront him or challenge him to debate, don't just silence his opposition. Beating someone in reasoned argument is far more effective than censoring them out. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 14:16, 25 June 2013 (GMT)

:::::I'm not going to learn my lesson from the British "Conservative" Party. It's been taken over by the sexual degenerates. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:20, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

::::::Was I talking about the Party? I don't think so. I said British Conservatives, as in British people who are conservative, especially in the grassroots conservative activism. Oh and don't start passing judgement on a whole party based on a minority. Take good advice when it is given. old saying in Britain "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." I simply gave you a method to prove your point and deal with liberal opposition in one go. If you want to start being judgmental of me and my ideology based off my nationality go ahead but you are only hurting your own cause. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 14:27, 25 June 2013 (GMT)

:::::::Whatever. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 09:30, 25 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::::Don't listen to Markman, he is not an administrator. If Mr. Schlafly, or another senior administrator has an issue, they would raise it with you. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:06, 25 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism and politics

2013-07-10T00:57:45Z

Ryancsh: Created page with "Conservative, do you mind if I move the Bara Group point in with Atheism on the Left? I feel that it would do more justice there rather than in the introduction since it mainly a..."

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-07-10T00:49:36Z

Ryancsh: /* A question -- */

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-07-10T00:45:33Z

Ryancsh: /* A question -- */

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-07-10T00:42:03Z

Ryancsh: /* A question -- */

Atheism and politics

2013-07-09T22:01:48Z

Ryancsh: /* Atheism In the Center (Liberalism) */ another one

Atheism does not have a unified political standing but rather a diverse range of opinions in the realm of politics. There is the existence of Atheists on all major political positions such as the [[Secular left]] and the [[Secular right]]. The reason for this diversity is that there is no grounding for opinions on issues other than the morality that the particular atheist perceives.<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/AtheistPolitica.htm</ref>. As their morality can be diverse, so to can the political opinions of Atheists and this varies differently from country to country as the Secular left are the most notable in the USA while in the United Kingdom there is links towards a tradition of the secualar right, e.g. [[David Hume]] who was an Atheist who's book ''History'' would "spread toryism across the land" according to [[Thomas Jefferson]].<ref>http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=673&chapter=159422&layout=html&Itemid=27</ref>

==Atheism On The Right (Conservatism and Libertarianism)==
Made most apparent by the secular right, there are a number of Atheists who follow Conservatism in both the fiscal and social sense. Jillian Becker, a British Conservative Atheist who founded the blog "The Atheist Conservative", once claimed "one does not need Jesus to lead one toward a conservative viewpoint. In fact, a case could be made that the irrationality of religion is completely at odds with the ultra-rationality of conservative politics."<ref>http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/new-online-community-for-atheist-conservatives-755990.htm</ref>. In fact, US republicanism did not start combineing reglion with conservatism until the 1970s.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/us/19beliefs.html?_r=0</ref>. The Secular right claims that conservatism ends with "Human Flourishing"<ref>http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/about/</ref> and so an Atheist who follows reason and logic would accept this as the best political pathway. Another reason is that Atheists will reject [[Liberal claptrap]] due to the lack of evidence that Liberals can provide against the historical evidence that Conservatism provides. As aforementioned, the level of Atheists who are conservative varies greatly by country. In the USA, few Atheists are conservatives, while there are a few notable conservatives such as Razib Khan and Heather Mac Donald who are considered leading figures of the secular right. This low level can be attributed to Attacks from the religious right such as George Bush who once said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" which would not ease Secular Right and Religious Right tensions. There is a far stronger position of Atheist conservatives in The United Kingdom, with famous adherents such as David Hume, Reginald Johnston<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990623/debtext/90623-40.htm</ref> and Tory MP Michael Portillo. In South Korera, the Head of the conservative party was an atheist while he was running against a Roman-Catholic liberal.<ref>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/12/conservative-atheists-not-rare-in-south-korea/#.UdyBOW3pRxI
</ref>

==Atheism In the Center (Liberalism)==
The Secular left, while called left, actively promotes liberalism. It demands "strict government secularism" and "anger toward religious and political conservatives,"<ref>http://www.secularleft.us/about</ref> within the USA. The secular left has historically opposed religious conservatives and social conservatism. Part of this is ideologically centered. Liberalism had its foundlings in challenging traditions and religious thinking has became tradition for certain countries. As such, being an Atheist defies tradition in these countries and so Atheism would seem liberal. It has been claimed that American Atheism has only became liberal in a reaction towards the attacks of the Religious Right<ref>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2012/06/liberal-atheists/</ref> in a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and even a claim that the secular left is not strong but is rather an over-reaction of the religious right in calling all center-left politicians "the secular left"<ref>http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0523-25.htm</ref>. Within the United Kingdom, there are notable atheist liberals such as current Deputy Prime-Minister Nick Clegg.

==Atheism on the Left (Socialism and Communism)==
According to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."<ref name="Marxism-Leninsim">{{cite web|url = http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html|title =Marxism|publisher = [[University of Cambridge]]|quote=The most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power. For the first time in history, atheism thus became the official ideology of a state.|year=2008|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref> Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "[[Bolshevik]] communists were not merely atheists but, according to [[Lenin]]'s terminology, [[militant atheist]]s."<ref name="Lenin & militant atheism">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=ufC9Ar8iuDcC&pg=PA161&dq=The+Bolshevik+communists+were+not+merely+atheists+but,+according+to+Lenin%27s+terminology,+militant+atheists.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1oFUUdj6PIiK0QGvq4CAAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Bolshevik%20communists%20were%20not%20merely%20atheists%20but%2C%20according%20to%20Lenin's%20terminology%2C%20militant%20atheists.&f=false|title =On Superconductivity and Superfluidity: A Scientific Autobiography |author=Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg|publisher = [[Springer Science+Business Media]]|year=2009|quote=The Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists.|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref> However, prior to this, the [[Reign of Terror]] of the [[French Revolution]] established an [[atheist state]], with the official ideology being the [[Cult of Reason]]; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the [[guillotine]].<ref name="Guillotine">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=bf3m7IVAa9gC&pg=PA461&dq=France+atheism+guillotine++Christians+executed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l4lUUaTRBufG0QGe0IHACA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=France%20atheism%20guillotine%20%20Christians%20executed&f=false|title =Christianity|author=James Adair|publisher = JBE Online Books|year=2007|quote=Although the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes toAlthough the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes to the calendar eliminated references to Christian holidays, and even the ancient seven-day week, and a ist of officially recognized saints included such famous thinkers such as Socrates, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rosseau. A period of political persecution, often with religious overtones, broke out, known as the Reign of Teror. Thousands of people were executed by the guillotine, including many of the original leaders of the French Revolution.|page=461|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref><ref name="France">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=9WkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA105&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =Memoirs of the reign of George III. to the session of parliament ending A.D. 1793, Volume 5|page=105|author=William Belsham|publisher = G.G. & J. Robinson|year=1801|quote=Reign of this portentous period, it has been eloquently tenor, and energetically observed, " that the reign of atheism in France was avowed the reign of terror. In the full madness of their career, in the highest climax of their horrors, they shut up the temples of God, abolished His worship, and proclaimed death to be an eternal sleep:-in the very centre of Christendom, Revelation underwent a total eclipse, while atheism, performing on a darkened theatre its strange and fearful tragedy, confounded the first elements of society, blended every age, rank, and sex ,indiscriminate proscription and massacre, and convulsed all Europe to its centre, that the imperishable memorial of these events might teach the last generations of mankind to consider religion as the pillar of society, the parent of social order, and the safe-guard of nations." It is wonderful that, amid the horrors of this dismal period, while "the death dance of democratic revolution" was still in rapid movement, among the tears of affliction, and the cries of despair, "the masque, the song, the theatric scene, the buffoon laughter, went on as regularly as in the gay hour of festive peace."|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref><ref name="Reign of Terror">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=Tt5rqiCP1p8C&pg=PA57&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West|author=William Kilpatrick|publisher = [[Ignatius Press]]|year=2012|quote=Actually, it's helpful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment that cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the suppression of church by state, and the godless philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche and their offspring-National Socialism and communism. More recently the abandonment of God has led to the regime of cultural relativism that regards rights as arbitrary constructions. It's this second Enlightenment tradition that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to when he wrote, "The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots ultimately leads it to dispense with man." Actually this transition happened no "ultimately" but almost immediately. The first instance occurred when Enlightenment worship of abstract "reason" and "liberty" degenearated quickly into the mass murders committed during the antireligious Reign of Terror in France. "Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name", said Madam Rolande as she faced the statue of Liberty in the Place de la Revolution movements before her death at the guillotine. She was one of the early victims of a succession of secular systems based on rootless notions of "liberty", "equality", and "reason". As many historians have pointed out, the atheist regimes of modern times are guilty of far more crimes than any committed in the name of religion. Communist governments alone were guilty of more than one hundred million murders, most of them committed against their own people.|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref>
There is far more notable examples of Atheists on the left than in any other political spectrum. This is mainly due to the Marx idea that "Religion is the opium of the masses" which appeals to Atheists. Additionally, within totalitarian communist regimes, the church was a threat to the power of the dictator and so being a Militant Atheist was necessary in order to expand the power of the state. Though, quite ironically, the communist left sometimes push for more integration of church and state. An example of this was Stalin's revitalization of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941, which was joked to be more of a nationalization than a revitalization.<ref>http://www.ipc.od.ua/14spravka.html </ref>. In British Politics, the Socialist party Labour have had multiple Atheist members including Clement Attlee who became prime-minister<ref>"[...] then in 1896 at the age of thirteen went on, like all the boys in the family, to Haileybury College. Here he confirmed an unobtrusive atheism—he became disenchanted with church attendance and religious observance—and played rugby and cricket with the handicap of his small stature and lack of any real skill, but enjoyed the rifle corps." R. C. Whiting, 'Attlee, Clement Richard, first Earl Attlee (1883–1967)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edition, January 2008 (accessed May 2, 2008). </ref> and Ken Livingston, mayor of London<ref>"I assume you're an atheist? I am too. Isn't life easier?" "Ken Livingstone: The Interview". attitude.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Atheism and politics

2013-07-09T22:00:06Z

Ryancsh: /* Atheism On The Right (Conservatism and Libertarianism) */ typo

Atheism does not have a unified political standing but rather a diverse range of opinions in the realm of politics. There is the existence of Atheists on all major political positions such as the [[Secular left]] and the [[Secular right]]. The reason for this diversity is that there is no grounding for opinions on issues other than the morality that the particular atheist perceives.<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/AtheistPolitica.htm</ref>. As their morality can be diverse, so to can the political opinions of Atheists and this varies differently from country to country as the Secular left are the most notable in the USA while in the United Kingdom there is links towards a tradition of the secualar right, e.g. [[David Hume]] who was an Atheist who's book ''History'' would "spread toryism across the land" according to [[Thomas Jefferson]].<ref>http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=673&chapter=159422&layout=html&Itemid=27</ref>

==Atheism On The Right (Conservatism and Libertarianism)==
Made most apparent by the secular right, there are a number of Atheists who follow Conservatism in both the fiscal and social sense. Jillian Becker, a British Conservative Atheist who founded the blog "The Atheist Conservative", once claimed "one does not need Jesus to lead one toward a conservative viewpoint. In fact, a case could be made that the irrationality of religion is completely at odds with the ultra-rationality of conservative politics."<ref>http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/new-online-community-for-atheist-conservatives-755990.htm</ref>. In fact, US republicanism did not start combineing reglion with conservatism until the 1970s.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/us/19beliefs.html?_r=0</ref>. The Secular right claims that conservatism ends with "Human Flourishing"<ref>http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/about/</ref> and so an Atheist who follows reason and logic would accept this as the best political pathway. Another reason is that Atheists will reject [[Liberal claptrap]] due to the lack of evidence that Liberals can provide against the historical evidence that Conservatism provides. As aforementioned, the level of Atheists who are conservative varies greatly by country. In the USA, few Atheists are conservatives, while there are a few notable conservatives such as Razib Khan and Heather Mac Donald who are considered leading figures of the secular right. This low level can be attributed to Attacks from the religious right such as George Bush who once said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" which would not ease Secular Right and Religious Right tensions. There is a far stronger position of Atheist conservatives in The United Kingdom, with famous adherents such as David Hume, Reginald Johnston<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990623/debtext/90623-40.htm</ref> and Tory MP Michael Portillo. In South Korera, the Head of the conservative party was an atheist while he was running against a Roman-Catholic liberal.<ref>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/12/conservative-atheists-not-rare-in-south-korea/#.UdyBOW3pRxI
</ref>

==Atheism In the Center (Liberalism)==
The Secular left, while called left, actively promotes liberalism. It demands "strict government secularism" and "anger toward religious and political conservatives,"<ref>http://www.secularleft.us/about</ref> within the USA. The secular left has historically opposed religious conservatives and social conservatism. Part of this is ideologically centered. Liberalism had its foundlings in challenging traditions and religious thinking has became tradition for certain countries. As Such, being an Atheist defies tradition in these countries and so Atheism would seem liberal. It has been claimed that American Atheism has only became liberal in a reaction towards the attacks of the Religious Right<ref>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2012/06/liberal-atheists/</ref> in a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and even a claim that the secular left is not strong but is rather an over-reaction of the religious right in calling call center-left politicians "the secular left"<ref>http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0523-25.htm</ref>. Within the United Kingdom, there are notable atheist liberals such as current Deputy Prime-Minister Nick Clegg.

==Atheism on the Left (Socialism and Communism)==
According to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."<ref name="Marxism-Leninsim">{{cite web|url = http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html|title =Marxism|publisher = [[University of Cambridge]]|quote=The most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power. For the first time in history, atheism thus became the official ideology of a state.|year=2008|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref> Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "[[Bolshevik]] communists were not merely atheists but, according to [[Lenin]]'s terminology, [[militant atheist]]s."<ref name="Lenin & militant atheism">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=ufC9Ar8iuDcC&pg=PA161&dq=The+Bolshevik+communists+were+not+merely+atheists+but,+according+to+Lenin%27s+terminology,+militant+atheists.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1oFUUdj6PIiK0QGvq4CAAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Bolshevik%20communists%20were%20not%20merely%20atheists%20but%2C%20according%20to%20Lenin's%20terminology%2C%20militant%20atheists.&f=false|title =On Superconductivity and Superfluidity: A Scientific Autobiography |author=Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg|publisher = [[Springer Science+Business Media]]|year=2009|quote=The Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists.|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref> However, prior to this, the [[Reign of Terror]] of the [[French Revolution]] established an [[atheist state]], with the official ideology being the [[Cult of Reason]]; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the [[guillotine]].<ref name="Guillotine">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=bf3m7IVAa9gC&pg=PA461&dq=France+atheism+guillotine++Christians+executed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l4lUUaTRBufG0QGe0IHACA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=France%20atheism%20guillotine%20%20Christians%20executed&f=false|title =Christianity|author=James Adair|publisher = JBE Online Books|year=2007|quote=Although the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes toAlthough the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes to the calendar eliminated references to Christian holidays, and even the ancient seven-day week, and a ist of officially recognized saints included such famous thinkers such as Socrates, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rosseau. A period of political persecution, often with religious overtones, broke out, known as the Reign of Teror. Thousands of people were executed by the guillotine, including many of the original leaders of the French Revolution.|page=461|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref><ref name="France">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=9WkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA105&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =Memoirs of the reign of George III. to the session of parliament ending A.D. 1793, Volume 5|page=105|author=William Belsham|publisher = G.G. & J. Robinson|year=1801|quote=Reign of this portentous period, it has been eloquently tenor, and energetically observed, " that the reign of atheism in France was avowed the reign of terror. In the full madness of their career, in the highest climax of their horrors, they shut up the temples of God, abolished His worship, and proclaimed death to be an eternal sleep:-in the very centre of Christendom, Revelation underwent a total eclipse, while atheism, performing on a darkened theatre its strange and fearful tragedy, confounded the first elements of society, blended every age, rank, and sex ,indiscriminate proscription and massacre, and convulsed all Europe to its centre, that the imperishable memorial of these events might teach the last generations of mankind to consider religion as the pillar of society, the parent of social order, and the safe-guard of nations." It is wonderful that, amid the horrors of this dismal period, while "the death dance of democratic revolution" was still in rapid movement, among the tears of affliction, and the cries of despair, "the masque, the song, the theatric scene, the buffoon laughter, went on as regularly as in the gay hour of festive peace."|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref><ref name="Reign of Terror">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=Tt5rqiCP1p8C&pg=PA57&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West|author=William Kilpatrick|publisher = [[Ignatius Press]]|year=2012|quote=Actually, it's helpful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment that cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the suppression of church by state, and the godless philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche and their offspring-National Socialism and communism. More recently the abandonment of God has led to the regime of cultural relativism that regards rights as arbitrary constructions. It's this second Enlightenment tradition that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to when he wrote, "The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots ultimately leads it to dispense with man." Actually this transition happened no "ultimately" but almost immediately. The first instance occurred when Enlightenment worship of abstract "reason" and "liberty" degenearated quickly into the mass murders committed during the antireligious Reign of Terror in France. "Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name", said Madam Rolande as she faced the statue of Liberty in the Place de la Revolution movements before her death at the guillotine. She was one of the early victims of a succession of secular systems based on rootless notions of "liberty", "equality", and "reason". As many historians have pointed out, the atheist regimes of modern times are guilty of far more crimes than any committed in the name of religion. Communist governments alone were guilty of more than one hundred million murders, most of them committed against their own people.|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref>
There is far more notable examples of Atheists on the left than in any other political spectrum. This is mainly due to the Marx idea that "Religion is the opium of the masses" which appeals to Atheists. Additionally, within totalitarian communist regimes, the church was a threat to the power of the dictator and so being a Militant Atheist was necessary in order to expand the power of the state. Though, quite ironically, the communist left sometimes push for more integration of church and state. An example of this was Stalin's revitalization of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941, which was joked to be more of a nationalization than a revitalization.<ref>http://www.ipc.od.ua/14spravka.html </ref>. In British Politics, the Socialist party Labour have had multiple Atheist members including Clement Attlee who became prime-minister<ref>"[...] then in 1896 at the age of thirteen went on, like all the boys in the family, to Haileybury College. Here he confirmed an unobtrusive atheism—he became disenchanted with church attendance and religious observance—and played rugby and cricket with the handicap of his small stature and lack of any real skill, but enjoyed the rifle corps." R. C. Whiting, 'Attlee, Clement Richard, first Earl Attlee (1883–1967)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edition, January 2008 (accessed May 2, 2008). </ref> and Ken Livingston, mayor of London<ref>"I assume you're an atheist? I am too. Isn't life easier?" "Ken Livingstone: The Interview". attitude.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Conservative blogs

2013-07-09T21:48:43Z

Ryancsh:

Below are some of the more notable conservative blogs:

*[http://hotair.com/ Hot Air] (see also: [[Hot Air]] )

* [http://michellemalkin.com/ Michelle Malkin] (see also [[Michelle Malkin]])

*[http://powerlineblog.com/ Power Line] (see also: [[Power Line|Power Line]] )

* [http://newsbusters.org/ NewsBusters] (see also: [[NewsBusters]] )

* [http://blog.heritage.org/ Heritage Foundation blog] (see also: [[Heritage Foundation]] )

*[http://www.thedailyconservative.net The Daily Conservative]

*[http://www.theconservativepost.com The Conservative Post]

* [http://www.howardphillips.com/ Conservative Caucus blog]

* [http://conservativehome.blogs.com/ ConservativeHome] - the UK's leading independent grassroots Conservative Blog

* [http://conhomeusa.typepad.com/ ConservativeHome USA] - American version of the UK's Leading Conservative Blog

* [http://blog.conservatives.com/ The Blue Blog] - Official Blog of the UK Conservative Party

* [http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/ John Redwood's Diary] - Insightful comments from Conservative MP John Redwood (highly noted for his views on economic matters in the UK, USA & Europe)

* [http://www.conservativechitchat.co.uk/html/blogs.html ConservativeChitChat] - UK Conservative Blog & Shortlist of other notable UK Conservative Blogs

* [http://1461days.blogspot.com/ The 1461] Following the Obama Administrations Use and Abuse of the Executive Order

* [http://intelligentuspolitics.com/ Intelligent US Politics] Conservative political blog covers American politics free from liberal bias

* [http://theatheistconservative.com/ The Atheist Conservative] Conservative Blog showing that Atheism and Conservatism can be intertwined.

* [http://unreligiousright.blogspot.co.uk/ The Unreligious Right] A second Atheist Conservative Blog

== How to guide on Conservative blogging ==

[[Voices: How to Blog]] is a website introducing conservatives to blogging.

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]] and [[Conservative resources]]

* [[Essay:Best News Sources|Conservative news websites]]

* [[Conservative video]]

* [[Conservative columnists]]

* [[Major conservative organizations]]

* [[Conservative humor and satire resources]]

[[Category: Conservative]]
[[Category:Conservative Media]]

Atheism and politics

2013-07-09T21:46:33Z

Ryancsh: Finally, been meaning to do this for a while now.

Atheism does not have a unified political standing but rather a diverse range of opinions in the realm of politics. There is the existence of Atheists on all major political positions such as the [[Secular left]] and the [[Secular right]]. The reason for this diversity is that there is no grounding for opinions on issues other than the morality that the particular atheist perceives.<ref>http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/AtheistPolitica.htm</ref>. As their morality can be diverse, so to can the political opinions of Atheists and this varies differently from country to country as the Secular left are the most notable in the USA while in the United Kingdom there is links towards a tradition of the secualar right, e.g. [[David Hume]] who was an Atheist who's book ''History'' would "spread toryism across the land" according to [[Thomas Jefferson]].<ref>http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=673&chapter=159422&layout=html&Itemid=27</ref>

==Atheism On The Right (Conservatism and Libertarianism)==
Made most apparent by the secular right, there are a number of Atheists who follow Conservatism in both the fiscal and social sense. Jillian Becker, a British Conservative Atheist who founded the blog "The Atheist Conservative", once claimed "one does not need Jesus to lead one toward a conservative viewpoint. In fact, a case could be made that the irrationality of religion is completely at odds with the ultra-rationality of conservative politics."<ref>http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/new-online-community-for-atheist-conservatives-755990.htm</ref>. In fact, US republicanism did not start combineing reglion with conservatism until the 1970s.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/us/19beliefs.html?_r=0</ref>. The Secular right claims that conservatism ends with "Human Flourishing"<ref>http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/about/</ref> and so an Atheist who follows reason and logic would accept this as the best political pathway. Another reason is that Atheists will reject [[Liberal claptrap]] due to the lack of evidence that Liberals can provide against the historical evidence that Conservatism provides. As aforementioned, the level of Atheists who are conservative varies greatly by country. In the USA, few Atheists are conservatives, while there are a few notable conservatives such as Razib Khan and Heather Mac Donald who are considered leading figures of the secular right. This low level can be attributed to Attacks from the religious right such as George Bush who once said "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots" which would not ease Secular Right and Religious Right tensions. There is a far stronger position of Atheist conservatives in The United Kingdom, with famous adherents such as David Hume, Reginald Johnston<ref>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990623/debtext/90623-40.htm</ref> and Tory MP Michael Portillo. In South Korera, the Head of thew conservative party was an atheist while he was running against a Roman-Catholic liberal.<ref>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/12/conservative-atheists-not-rare-in-south-korea/#.UdyBOW3pRxI
</ref>
==Atheism In the Center (Liberalism)==
The Secular left, while called left, actively promotes liberalism. It demands "strict government secularism" and "anger toward religious and political conservatives,"<ref>http://www.secularleft.us/about</ref> within the USA. The secular left has historically opposed religious conservatives and social conservatism. Part of this is ideologically centered. Liberalism had its foundlings in challenging traditions and religious thinking has became tradition for certain countries. As Such, being an Atheist defies tradition in these countries and so Atheism would seem liberal. It has been claimed that American Atheism has only became liberal in a reaction towards the attacks of the Religious Right<ref>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2012/06/liberal-atheists/</ref> in a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and even a claim that the secular left is not strong but is rather an over-reaction of the religious right in calling call center-left politicians "the secular left"<ref>http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0523-25.htm</ref>. Within the United Kingdom, there are notable atheist liberals such as current Deputy Prime-Minister Nick Clegg.

==Atheism on the Left (Socialism and Communism)==
According to the [[University of Cambridge]], historically, the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the [[Marxism-Leninism|Marxist-Leninists]] to power."<ref name="Marxism-Leninsim">{{cite web|url = http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html|title =Marxism|publisher = [[University of Cambridge]]|quote=The most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power. For the first time in history, atheism thus became the official ideology of a state.|year=2008|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref> Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg, a Soviet physicist, wrote that the "[[Bolshevik]] communists were not merely atheists but, according to [[Lenin]]'s terminology, [[militant atheist]]s."<ref name="Lenin & militant atheism">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=ufC9Ar8iuDcC&pg=PA161&dq=The+Bolshevik+communists+were+not+merely+atheists+but,+according+to+Lenin%27s+terminology,+militant+atheists.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1oFUUdj6PIiK0QGvq4CAAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=The%20Bolshevik%20communists%20were%20not%20merely%20atheists%20but%2C%20according%20to%20Lenin's%20terminology%2C%20militant%20atheists.&f=false|title =On Superconductivity and Superfluidity: A Scientific Autobiography |author=Vitalij Lazarʹevič Ginzburg|publisher = [[Springer Science+Business Media]]|year=2009|quote=The Bolshevik communists were not merely atheists but, according to Lenin's terminology, militant atheists.|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref> However, prior to this, the [[Reign of Terror]] of the [[French Revolution]] established an [[atheist state]], with the official ideology being the [[Cult of Reason]]; during this time thousands of believers were suppressed and executed by the [[guillotine]].<ref name="Guillotine">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=bf3m7IVAa9gC&pg=PA461&dq=France+atheism+guillotine++Christians+executed&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l4lUUaTRBufG0QGe0IHACA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=France%20atheism%20guillotine%20%20Christians%20executed&f=false|title =Christianity|author=James Adair|publisher = JBE Online Books|year=2007|quote=Although the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes toAlthough the Civil Constitution called for religious liberty, which was extended to Jews as well as Christians, many revolutionaries pushed for the establishment of a new state religion, either the Cult of Reason (atheists) or the Cult of the Supreme Being (Deists). Changes to the calendar eliminated references to Christian holidays, and even the ancient seven-day week, and a ist of officially recognized saints included such famous thinkers such as Socrates, Jesus, Marcus Aurelius, and Jean-Jacques Rosseau. A period of political persecution, often with religious overtones, broke out, known as the Reign of Teror. Thousands of people were executed by the guillotine, including many of the original leaders of the French Revolution.|page=461|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref><ref name="France">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=9WkBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA105&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =Memoirs of the reign of George III. to the session of parliament ending A.D. 1793, Volume 5|page=105|author=William Belsham|publisher = G.G. & J. Robinson|year=1801|quote=Reign of this portentous period, it has been eloquently tenor, and energetically observed, " that the reign of atheism in France was avowed the reign of terror. In the full madness of their career, in the highest climax of their horrors, they shut up the temples of God, abolished His worship, and proclaimed death to be an eternal sleep:-in the very centre of Christendom, Revelation underwent a total eclipse, while atheism, performing on a darkened theatre its strange and fearful tragedy, confounded the first elements of society, blended every age, rank, and sex ,indiscriminate proscription and massacre, and convulsed all Europe to its centre, that the imperishable memorial of these events might teach the last generations of mankind to consider religion as the pillar of society, the parent of social order, and the safe-guard of nations." It is wonderful that, amid the horrors of this dismal period, while "the death dance of democratic revolution" was still in rapid movement, among the tears of affliction, and the cries of despair, "the masque, the song, the theatric scene, the buffoon laughter, went on as regularly as in the gay hour of festive peace."|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref><ref name="Reign of Terror">{{cite web|url = http://books.google.com/books?id=Tt5rqiCP1p8C&pg=PA57&dq=Reign+of+Terror+atheism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HoRUUcD0NeXX0gGNo4HIDQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Reign%20of%20Terror%20atheism&f=false|title =Christianity, Islam, and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West|author=William Kilpatrick|publisher = [[Ignatius Press]]|year=2012|quote=Actually, it's helpful to think in terms of two Enlightenments: the Enlightenment that cut itself off from God. The former led to the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, the abolition of slavery, and the civil rights movement. The latter led to the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, the suppression of church by state, and the godless philosophies of Marx and Nietzsche and their offspring-National Socialism and communism. More recently the abandonment of God has led to the regime of cultural relativism that regards rights as arbitrary constructions. It's this second Enlightenment tradition that Cardinal Ratzinger referred to when he wrote, "The radical detachment of the Enlightenment philosophy from its roots ultimately leads it to dispense with man." Actually this transition happened no "ultimately" but almost immediately. The first instance occurred when Enlightenment worship of abstract "reason" and "liberty" degenearated quickly into the mass murders committed during the antireligious Reign of Terror in France. "Liberty, what crimes are committed in your name", said Madam Rolande as she faced the statue of Liberty in the Place de la Revolution movements before her death at the guillotine. She was one of the early victims of a succession of secular systems based on rootless notions of "liberty", "equality", and "reason". As many historians have pointed out, the atheist regimes of modern times are guilty of far more crimes than any committed in the name of religion. Communist governments alone were guilty of more than one hundred million murders, most of them committed against their own people.|accessdate = 2011–03–15}}</ref>
There is far more notable examples of Atheists on the left than in any other political spectrum. This is mainly due to the Marx idea that "Religion is the opium of the masses" which appeals to Atheists. Additionally, within totalitarian communist regimes, the church was a threat to the power of the dictator and so being a Militant Atheist was necessary in order to expand the power of the state. Though, quite ironically, the communist left sometimes push for more integration of church and state. An example of this was Stalin's revitalization of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1941, which was joked to be more of a nationalization than a revitalization.<ref>http://www.ipc.od.ua/14spravka.html </ref>. In British Politics, the Socialist party Labour have had multiple Atheist members including Clement Attlee who became prime-minister<ref>"[...] then in 1896 at the age of thirteen went on, like all the boys in the family, to Haileybury College. Here he confirmed an unobtrusive atheism—he became disenchanted with church attendance and religious observance—and played rugby and cricket with the handicap of his small stature and lack of any real skill, but enjoyed the rifle corps." R. C. Whiting, 'Attlee, Clement Richard, first Earl Attlee (1883–1967)', Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edition, January 2008 (accessed May 2, 2008). </ref> and Ken Livingston, mayor of London<ref>"I assume you're an atheist? I am too. Isn't life easier?" "Ken Livingstone: The Interview". attitude.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

American Dad

2013-06-30T15:20:22Z

Ryancsh: /* Liberal Themes */ Actually, it doesn't. watch that episode before you make a judgement on it.

'''American Dad''' is a liberal cartoon TV serial by the [[atheist]] [[Seth MacFarlane]].
== Plot ==
Stan Smith is a patriotic conservative republican agent of the [[CIA]] and father of two kids. His wife Francine and his son Steve support his politics. But his daughter Hayley is a liberal atheist [[Hippie]]. In addition Klaus, a gold fish with an exchanged brain of a German man, and the alien Roger live with the family.

== Liberal Themes ==
In the episode ''Lincoln Lover'' Stan identically becomes involved with a Gay Republican Group and over time comes to support the inclusion of homosexuals in the Republican Party. In ''American Dream Factory'' it supports illegal aliens.

[[Category:Comedy Television Shows]]

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-06-25T13:27:39Z

Ryancsh: /* No unblocking of suspected editors for now */

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-06-25T13:16:32Z

Ryancsh: /* No unblocking of suspected editors for now */

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-06-25T13:08:05Z

Ryancsh: /* No unblocking of suspected editors for now */

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-06-25T13:00:40Z

Ryancsh: /* No unblocking of suspected editors for now */

Abortion and adoption

2013-06-25T12:49:45Z

Ryancsh: /* Future Of The Child */

A major point in the [[Pro-life]] argument is that unplanned or unwanted children can be put up for [[Adoption]] rather than the women opting for [[Abortion]]. With 60% of pregnancies being unintended<ref>http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/07/unintended-pregnancy-thomas-monea</ref>,there is a genuine issue with regards to the future of these children. Abortion attempts to solve this problem with the argument that an unintended child's life will be so bad that it would be better for the child to never live at all. However, Adoption gives the child a chance at life in a better, and often more prepared, environment. Adoption also gives significant benefits to the mother of the child as well as the family that adopts. Abortion, on the other hand, can only benefit the mother and even this is questionable due to the guilt that many potential mothers feel afterwards known as Post-Abortion Syndrome.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap1.html</ref>.

==Future Of The Child==
''For more information please see'': [[Adoption success stories]]

Abortion leaves a child with no future, effectively terminating any chance that the child has at life. The mentality behind this is that no life is better than a bad one. Adoption counters this by giving an unwanted child a better chance at life. There are strict criteria for adoptive parents particularity in the USA<ref>http://adoption.state.gov/adoption_process/who.php</ref>, and the United Kingdom <ref>https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/adoption-assessment</ref>. This is to ensure that any adopted child will be given a better chance at life is a loving and caring environment. As such, Adoption gives the child a possible future, Abortion terminates the future of the child.

==On The Mother==
Post-Abortion Syndrome often occurs after an abortion, leaving a mother with feelings of guilt and of shame. The only potential benefit is that the woman is now free of the child and can now go on with her Life. However, Adoption offers the same benefit as well as other benefits that could have a beneficial impact on the mother:

1. There is no financial impact on the Mother for choosing adoption. Pregnancy expenses are usually paid for by the adoptive family.<ref>http://www.pcciowa.com/yourchoices.htm</ref>. Abortion will usually cost $490 in the USA <ref>http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/Average-Cost-of-an-Abortion.htm</ref>. While the NHS in the United Kingdom will cover abortions if they meet the criteria, privately run Clinics offer it from £500 (around $767).

2.The mother gets a say in what sort of family adopts their child and also has the opportunity to keep in contact with the child.<ref>http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/pregnant</ref>

3.Ethically, women may choose to end with a result that brings life and not death.<ref>http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/adoption_abortion_parenting </ref>. Especially as adoption is more socially acceptable than abortion.<ref>http://dana825.hubpages.com/hub/Pros-and-Cons-of-Adoption-vs-Abortion</ref>

==On The Adoptive Family==
Adoption gives many benefits to families who wish for a child of their own yet abortion does not serve to help these people but rather makes it harder for them to fulfill their aspirations as Adoptive rates have fallen due to the increase in abortion.<ref> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html</ref>. The benefits are:

1.A couple, in which one of the partners are infertile, will have a chance to obtain a child that they can care for as their own.<ref>http://www.fertilitycommunity.com/fertility/infertility-and-adoption.html</ref> In fact, 2,000,00 couples are waiting to adopt in the USA yet only 50,000 babies are put up for adoption each year.<ref>http://www.lifemattersoutreach.org/p/abortion-info.html</ref>

2.In the United Kingdom, to encourage adoption, adoptive parents are given access to child benefit in order to ensure that they can financially afford to care for the child.<ref>http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/start/who-qualifies/adopt-foster-child.htm</ref>

3.Adoptive parents have opened their house to a child that is not their biological offspring. This is an act of unrequited love and it is logical that they would continue this and give the adopted child all the care and attention that it would not otherwise get in a household that never wanted him/her.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:abortion]]

Communism

2013-06-24T14:41:51Z

Ryancsh: Undo revision 1057903 by ItsARedEarth (talk) do not see the point of changing it. Orginal was better.

[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|right|175px]]
'''Communism''' is a [[left-wing]] [[materialist]]ic and often violently [[atheist]]ic ideology created to justify the overthrow of [[Capitalism]], replacing [[free market]] economics and [[democracy]] with a "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". Under Communism, the [[political]] system replaces the [[private property|private ownership]] of the means of production with "collective ownership" of the economy, this is to be accomplished through direct "democratic" control by the workers.<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1968/11/workersdem.htm</ref>
Twentieth century Communism was based on [[Karl Marx]]'s manifesto which proposed to establishment of a "[[classless society]]." However, all Communist societies have had a [[class structure]], notably the [[USSR]], which was dominated by a self appointed ''[[Nomenklatura]]''.

In the belief that "people cannot change", governments under the banner of Communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term [[democide]] (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that it caused the death of approximately 148,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.<ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM</ref>

President [[Ronald Reagan]] in an address before the British [[House of Commons]] said,
{{Cquote|'''What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.'''<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}

Today, communism continues to rule over at least one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref>
__TOC__
 

==Communist Theory and Practice==

[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|180px|left|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation in [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
Communism is based upon [[Marxism]], a philosophy which uses [[materialism]] to explain all physical and social phenomena. The theory of [[evolution]] influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, [[Friedrich Engels|Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], and [[Joseph Stalin]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> Marx wrote, "[[Charles Darwin|Darwin]]'s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the [[class struggle]] in history." Marx offered to dedicate the second German edition of his polemic "Das Kapital" to [[Charles Darwin]], but Darwin declined the "honour." <ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276</ref> <ref>Karl Marx's Social and Political Thought, Bob Jessop, ISBN 0415193265 (pg 476)</ref>

Economically, communism advocates a [[socialist]] economy in which the government owns the [[means of production]]. In countries where communism has been imposed, the government has taken ownership of farms, factories, stores and so on in the name of the people; see "[[dictatorship of the proletariat]]". This drives all [[free market|market-based]] economic activity underground and leads to inefficiencies and shortages. In both the Soviet Union and Red China, the number of people who starved to death when the government confiscated their farm products (animals and grain) is estimated in the tens of millions.

Even more important, one party controls every organization from the local labor union to the the army to the national government. The party is not elected. Its top officials (the "Politburo") select replacements when there is a vacancy. usually a dictator (like Stalin, Mao or Castro) controls the Politburo, but sometimes power is shared among five or six people. No dissent is allowed--all news media are controlled, and the Internet is heavily censored.

Elites do not disappear. Members of the ruling party (see [[Nomenklatura]]) have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are allegedly immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure.

Various communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]] (Communism).

The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1918 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion until World War II, when it discovered religion was needed to rally the people against the Nazi invaders. Like all authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion.

Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property," or as some have phrased it, legalized theft.

== Communism and militant atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and communism]]

[[Karl Marx]] believed [[atheism]] to be a key part of communism. He is often very famously quoted as saying, "Religion ... is the opium of the masses."<ref>Marx, K. [http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/31765.html Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right] (Classic Quotations) (Standard translation from the original German).</ref> His full quote was: "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm#05</ref> He believed it was part of the "superstructure," a false culture built to maintain the status quo. Thus he denigrated Christianity as a fictional religion. Instead, Marx was an avowed atheist, as he wrote, "Communism begins from the outset with [[atheism]]; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>Marx, Karl, [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm Private Property and Communism], 1944.</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on ''in practice'' and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich, ''Proletary'', No. 45, May 13 (26), 1909, translated by Andrew Rothstein and Bernard Issacs, quote from [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm].</ref>

In 1955, [[China|Chinese]] communist leader Chou En-lai declared, "We Communists are atheists".<ref>Noebel, David, The Battle for Truth, Harvest House, 2001.</ref>

The [[atheism]] in communist regimes has been and continues to be [[militant atheism]] and various acts of repression including the razing of thousands of religious buildings and the killing, imprisoning, and oppression of religious leaders and believers.<ref>http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/March_2000_4.html</ref><ref>http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/frroman1.aspx</ref><ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref><ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref><ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref><ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

Marxists justification for its persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church was based upon the claim that the Church was a "willing tool of Tsarism."<ref>http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union170406-6.htm</ref>

The clergy openly stated its support for the counter-revolution (White Revolution). Lenin proclaimed that a communist regime must show itself to be merciless toward the question of religion. There was no place for the church in Lenin's regime. This led to anti-religious decrees and propaganda. All church property was expropriated by the new Soviet government. <ref>http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-42047/Union-of-Soviet-Socialist-Republics#277888.hook</ref>

During the late 1930's and later 1940's the restrictions on church activity were loosened as Stalin needed all the support he could get for the war. This doctrine of co-operation between the church and state continued through out the existence of the Soviet republics and the other Warszawa pact nations. Though never going as far as a leader of the Soviet Union asking [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_barrow/2007/03/hiding_behind_god.html god to bless the country] the clause in the Soviet Unions constitution addressing the separation of church and state was rendered useless.

Dr. [[Martin Luther King]] said, "for the Communist there is no divine government, no absolute moral order, there are no fixed, immutable principles; consequently almost anything - force, violence, murder, lying - is a justifiable means." <ref>''Stride Toward Freedom : The Montgomery Story'', Martin Luther King, Jr., Harper and Rowe, New York, 1958, p. 92.</ref>
[[File:Stalin-kill.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Exhumed skeletons of [[class war]] victims murdered by communists.<ref>[http://www.mega.nu/ampp/rummel/rm1.stalin.kill.htm.</ref> Apologists maintain communism has never really been tried. ]]

== Atrocities and Repression ==
Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings on a scale of millions of individuals.<ref>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/comfaq.htm#part3</ref> A work entitled ''[[The Black Book of Communism]]'' published by the [[Harvard]] Press focuses on the crimes, terror, and repression of modern communist regimes over a 70 year period.<ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html</ref> This book is fairly controversial partly due to the various estimates regarding the millions of people who died under communist regimes.<ref>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html</ref><ref>http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm</ref><ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm</ref>
<ref>http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365</ref><ref>http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526</ref>

Similarly, a influential book which concerns itself with Russian communist torture, repression and atrocities is [[Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn]]'s ''[[The Gulag Archipelago]]'' which won Solzhenitsyn a [[Nobel Prize]].<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/03/01/home/solz-gulag.html</ref> In 1983, Alexander Solzhenitsyn in which he gave his explanation of the cause of why millions of people died under Russian communism:
{{Cquote|Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened. Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: "Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.}}
In communist [[North Korea]], abuse and killing in prison camps is occurring today.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5596</ref><ref>http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/nkdefec3.htm</ref> In addition, the North Korean government practices brutal repression and atrocities against North Korean Christians.<ref>http://www.nysun.com/article/23082?page_no=1</ref><ref>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/120250.shtml</ref>

In 1999, the publication [[Christian Century]] reported that "China has persecuted religious believers by means of "harassment, prolonged detention, and incarceration in prison or `reform-through-labor' camps and police closure of places of worship."<ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_26_116/ai_56249447</ref> In 2003, owners of Bibles in China were sent to prison camps and 125 Chinese churches were closed.<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35818</ref> China continues to practice religious oppression today.<ref>http://theworldnow.wordpress.com/tag/around-the-world/asia/china/</ref>

== Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism ==

''See also:'' [[Similarities between Communism, Nazism and liberalism]]

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
![[Communism|Communist]] Manifesto
![[Nazi]] Party Platform
!Analysis
|-
|1
|"Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes."
|"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land."
|The stripping away of land from private owners. [[Liberalism]] today demands "eminent domain" on property.
|-
|2
|"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts...profit-sharing in large industries...a generous increase in old-age pensions...by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor...and the creation of a national (folk) army."
|The points raised in the [[Nazi]] platform demand an increase in taxes to support them. Liberalism today demands heavy progressive and graduated income taxes.
|-
|3
|"Abolition of all rights of inheritance."
|"That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished."
|Liberalism today demands a "death tax" on anyone inheriting an estate.
|-
|4
|"Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
|"We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately."
|The Nuremburg Laws of 1934 allowed Germany to take Jewish property.
|-
|5
|"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
|"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."
|Central control of the financial system.
|-
|6
|"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
|"We demand that there be a legal campaign against those who propagate deliberate political lies and disseminate them through the press...editors and their assistants on newspapers published in the German language shall be German citizens...Non-German newspapers shall only be published with the express permission of the State...the punishment for transgressing this law be the immediate suppression of the newspaper..."
|Central control of the press. Liberals today demand control or suppression of talk radio and Fox News.
|-
|7
|"Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c."
|"In order to make it possible for every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education, and thus the opportunity to reach into positions of leadership, the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. The curricula of all educational establishments shall be adapted to practical life. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. We demand that specially talented children of poor parents, whatever their station or occupation, be educated at the expense of the State. "
|Central control of education, with an emphasis on doing things their way. Liberals today are doing things ''their way'' in our schools.
|-
|}

==Communists cite scripture==

Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. They often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good:
{{Cquote|And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2:44-45, KJV)

Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.(Acts 4:34-7, KJV)}}

But as Arnold Toynbee has pointed out, this Marxist view denies the most crucial points,
{{Cquote|The passage in the Acts represents the philanthropy of the primitive Christian Society as flowing from a God-given grace which was the fruit of a belief in the divinity of Jesus. In other words, the charity which is here depicted as moving the primitive Christians to go—in their mutual concern for one another's welfare—to the extreme length of sharing all their worldly goods is not a mere love of Man for Man (which is the limited literal meaning of the word ‘philanthropy’), but is a spiritual relation to which God is a party as well as His human creatures. In fact, this Christian Socialism is a practical application, on the economic surface of life, of the fundamental religious truth that the brotherhood of man is a consequence of the fatherhood of God - a truth which is driven home with special force by a religion which teaches that God is not only the Father and Creator of man, but also his Savior, Who has been incarnate in human shape and has suffered, and triumphed over, death.<ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585, ''Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity''.</ref>}}

==Communists shared totalitarian ideals with facism and nazism==

[[Adolf Hitler]] noted that Communists made excellent converts to Nazism, because the same personality type was attracted to both. "[T]here is more that binds us to [[Bolshevik|Bolshevism]] than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois [[Social democracy|Social-Democrat]] and the trade-union boss will never make a [[National Socialist]], but the Communists always will."<ref>quoted in Hermann Rauschning, ''Hitler Speaks''</ref> [[Josef Stalin]] also recognized that ex-Nazis and ex-[[fascist]]s were natural recruits for post-war Communist regimes. As Stanley Payne notes in his ''A History of Fascism: 1914-1945'', "All over Soviet-occupied eastern Europe (should be: Central and Eastern Europe), most rank-and-file former fascist party members, together with many lower-level leaders, were welcomed to fill the ranks of the initially exiguous local Communist parties. The psychological transition seems to have been an easy one, for obvious reasons."<ref>http://www.lietuvos.org/istorija/communism/</ref>

==Cuban communism==
[[Cuba]] remains a communist state controlled by the Castro brothers since 1960 and under U.S economic sanctions.

==Asian communism==
The [[CCP]] in China retains an autocratic regime controlled by the Communist party, which allows no democracy or dissent. However it does allow capitalism, and has experienced a very rapid growth of the private sector and the middle class. Observers expect that the regime's efforts to control public opinion and forestall the will of the people will be more and more difficult.

[[North Korea]] remains a brutal dictatorship controlled by the same family. [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]] are also run by the old Communist cliques.

==Collapse of the Soviet bloc==

The shooting down by the Soviets on Sept. 1, 1983 of [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] may have been a contributing factor for the downfall of the Soviet Union as well as for the whole Soviet block. It being a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union may be inferred from the fact that NATO had decided, under the impetus of the U.S. administration, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany. This deployment would have placed missiles just 6-10 minutes striking distance from Moscow. But support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted that the missile deployment would find enough support to effect it. When the Soviet Union shot down Flight 007 with 269 people aboard, including conservative Democratic Congressman [[Larry McDonald]] —an act which U.S. President Ronald Reagan characterized as a "massacre"—enough support was galvanized for the deployment. The deployment caused great resources of the Soviet Union to be diverted from inner economic use to military expenditures to counter the U.S. and NATO missile deployment.
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the communist states and the rest of Europe, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced democracy. With the collapse the remnants of Communist parties have dropped their old names and ideologies, but still operate on the left of the political spectrum.

==American communism==
:''Main article : [[Committees of Correspondence]]''
With the collapse of Soviet communism and the conversion of Chinese communism to "state run capitalism," the spiritual and ideological center of world of communism and the [[Marxist-Leninist]] tradition shifted to the [[United States]]. Several prominent American communists, rudderless without [[Moscow]] direction, formed a new organization in 1992 called the [[Committees of Correspondence for Democratic Socialism]].

The initial organizational conference was held in [[Berkeley]], [[California]], July 17-19, 1992. Charlene Mitchell, a former leader of the California Communist Party, speaking at the conference said, "the collapse of [[socialism]] in [[Central Europe]] and the [[Soviet Union]] left the [[United States]] in a near unchallenged position of world leadership." Mitchell continued,
{{Cquote|What began as a moment to take stock and ponder where to go from there has now become a very different entity. People from the Communist Party, from CrossRoads, from the [[Democratic Socialists of America]], from NCIPA [National Committee for Independent Political Action], from Solidarity, from the Socialist Organizing Network and many others, including independent leftists and independent socialists, have come together here in Berkeley.}}
Criticizing U.S. actions in the [[First Gulf War]], Mitchell stated,
{{Cquote|[[progressive]] forces were nearly powerless in the face of an onslaught of demagogic, [[patriotic]] [[jingoism]] and yellow ribbons. This war, fought for no legitimate reason, was the crowning height of [[George H.W. Bush|President [George H.W.] Bush]]'s [[New World Order]]. Previously, the Soviet Union helped to provide a certain balance to rein in the crazies in this country. Now, that balance is no longer there. It is now up to us, the American people, to rein in our own crazies. The [[left]] must take a major responsibility in organizing this task.}}

==Notorious communists==

Well known communists include:
*[[Salvador Allende]]
*[[William Ayers]]
*[[Fidel Castro]]
*[[Raul Castro]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]
*[[Carl Davidson]]
*[[Frank Marshall Davis]]
*[[Bernardine Dohrn]]
*[[Friedrich Engels]]
*[[Che Guevara]]
*[[Jim Jones]]
*[[Van Jones]]
*[[Kim Il Sung]]
*[[Kim Jong Il]]
*[[Kim Jong Un]]
*[[Lazar Kaganovich]]
*[[Vladimir Lenin]]
*[[Mao Zedong]]
*[[Karl Marx]]
*[[Ho Chi Minh]]
*[[Pol Pot]]
*[[Paul Robeson]]
*[[Joseph Stalin]]
*[[Yakov Sverdlov]]
*[[Leon Trotsky]]
*[[Genrikh Yagoda]]
*[[Yakov Yurovsky]]
*[[Choummaly Sayasone]]
*[[Hu Jintao]]

==Further reading==
* Pipes, Richard. ''Communism: A History'' (2003), by a leading conservative historian
** Pipes, Richard. ''History of Communism: A Brief History'' (2002)
* Priestland, David. ''The Red Flag: A History of Communism'' (2009)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/100thingsyoushou1949unit#page/n3/mode/2up 100 Things You Should Know About Communism'']

==See also==
*[[List of Communist States]]
*[[Communist Party of the United States of America]]
*[[Cold War]]
*[[Capitalism]]
*[[Iron Curtain]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Socialism]]
*[[Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.
*[[The Soviet/ U.S naval confrontation]] over KAL 007
*[[KAL 007 and the Soviet Top Secret Memos]]
*[[Communist Racism]]

==Notes and references==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/communism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Communism], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Communism]]
[[Category:Oppression]]
[[Category:Marxist terminology]]
[[Category:Forms of Government]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]
[[Category:Atheism]]

Abortion and adoption

2013-06-24T14:33:40Z

Ryancsh: spg error

A major point in the [[Pro-life]] argument is that unplanned or unwanted children can be put up for [[Adoption]] rather than the women opting for [[Abortion]]. With 60% of pregnancies being unintended<ref>http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/07/unintended-pregnancy-thomas-monea</ref>,there is a genuine issue with regards to the future of these children. Abortion attempts to solve this problem with the argument that an unintended child's life will be so bad that it would be better for the child to never live at all. However, Adoption gives the child a chance at life in a better, and often more prepared, environment. Adoption also gives significant benefits to the mother of the child as well as the family that adopts. Abortion, on the other hand, can only benefit the mother and even this is questionable due to the guilt that many potential mothers feel afterwards known as Post-Abortion Syndrome.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap1.html</ref>.

==Future Of The Child==
''For more information please see'': [[Adoption success stories]]
Abortion leaves a child with no future, effectively terminating any chance that the child has at life. The mentality behind this is that no life is better than a bad one. Adoption counters this by giving an unwanted child a better chance at life. There are strict criteria for adoptive parents particularity in the USA<ref>http://adoption.state.gov/adoption_process/who.php</ref>, and the United Kingdom <ref>https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/adoption-assessment</ref>. This is to ensure that any adopted child will be given a better chance at life is a loving and caring environment. As such, Adoption gives the child a possible future, Abortion terminates the future of the child.

==On The Mother==
Post-Abortion Syndrome often occurs after an abortion, leaving a mother with feelings of guilt and of shame. The only potential benefit is that the woman is now free of the child and can now go on with her Life. However, Adoption offers the same benefit as well as other benefits that could have a beneficial impact on the mother:

1. There is no financial impact on the Mother for choosing adoption. Pregnancy expenses are usually paid for by the adoptive family.<ref>http://www.pcciowa.com/yourchoices.htm</ref>. Abortion will usually cost $490 in the USA <ref>http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/Average-Cost-of-an-Abortion.htm</ref>. While the NHS in the United Kingdom will cover abortions if they meet the criteria, privately run Clinics offer it from £500 (around $767).

2.The mother gets a say in what sort of family adopts their child and also has the opportunity to keep in contact with the child.<ref>http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/pregnant</ref>

3.Ethically, women may choose to end with a result that brings life and not death.<ref>http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/adoption_abortion_parenting </ref>. Especially as adoption is more socially acceptable than abortion.<ref>http://dana825.hubpages.com/hub/Pros-and-Cons-of-Adoption-vs-Abortion</ref>

==On The Adoptive Family==
Adoption gives many benefits to families who wish for a child of their own yet abortion does not serve to help these people but rather makes it harder for them to fulfill their aspirations as Adoptive rates have fallen due to the increase in abortion.<ref> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html</ref>. The benefits are:

1.A couple, in which one of the partners are infertile, will have a chance to obtain a child that they can care for as their own.<ref>http://www.fertilitycommunity.com/fertility/infertility-and-adoption.html</ref> In fact, 2,000,00 couples are waiting to adopt in the USA yet only 50,000 babies are put up for adoption each year.<ref>http://www.lifemattersoutreach.org/p/abortion-info.html</ref>

2.In the United Kingdom, to encourage adoption, adoptive parents are given access to child benefit in order to ensure that they can financially afford to care for the child.<ref>http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/start/who-qualifies/adopt-foster-child.htm</ref>

3.Adoptive parents have opened their house to a child that is not their biological offspring. This is an act of unrequited love and it is logical that they would continue this and give the adopted child all the care and attention that it would not otherwise get in a household that never wanted him/her.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:abortion]]

Abortion and adoption

2013-06-24T14:33:14Z

Ryancsh: Tried to clean up this article,

A major point in the [[Pro-life]] argument is that unplanned or unwanted children can be put up for[[Adoption]] rather than the women opting for #REDIRECT [[Abortion]]. With 60% of pregnancies being unintended<ref>http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2011/07/unintended-pregnancy-thomas-monea</ref>,there is a genuine issue with regards to the future of these children. Abortion attempts to solve this problem with the argument that an unintended child's life will be so bad that it would be better for the child to never live at all. However, Adoption gives the child a chance at life in a better, and often more prepared, environment. Adoption also gives significant benefits to the mother of the child as well as the family that adopts. Abortion, on the other hand, can only benefit the mother and even this is questionable due to the guilt that many potential mothers feel afterwards known as Post-Abortion Syndrome.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/pap1.html</ref>.

==Future Of The Child==
''For more information please see'': [[Adoption success stories]]
Abortion leaves a child with no future, effectively terminating any chance that the child has at life. The mentality behind this is that no life is better than a bad one. Adoption counters this by giving an unwanted child a better chance at life. There are strict criteria for adoptive parents particularity in the USA<ref>http://adoption.state.gov/adoption_process/who.php</ref>, and the United Kingdom <ref>https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/adoption-assessment</ref>. This is to ensure that any adopted child will be given a better chance at life is a loving and caring environment. As such, Adoption gives the child a possible future, Abortion terminates the future of the child.

==On The Mother==
Post-Abortion Syndrome often occurs after an abortion, leaving a mother with feelings of guilt and of shame. The only potential benefit is that the woman is now free of the child and can now go on with her Life. However, Adoption offers the same benefit as well as other benefits that could have a beneficial impact on the mother:

1. There is no financial impact on the Mother for choosing adoption. Pregnancy expenses are usually paid for by the adoptive family.<ref>http://www.pcciowa.com/yourchoices.htm</ref>. Abortion will usually cost $490 in the USA <ref>http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortion/f/Average-Cost-of-an-Abortion.htm</ref>. While the NHS in the United Kingdom will cover abortions if they meet the criteria, privately run Clinics offer it from £500 (around $767).

2.The mother gets a say in what sort of family adopts their child and also has the opportunity to keep in contact with the child.<ref>http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/pregnant</ref>

3.Ethically, women may choose to end with a result that brings life and not death.<ref>http://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/adoption_abortion_parenting </ref>. Especially as adoption is more socially acceptable than abortion.<ref>http://dana825.hubpages.com/hub/Pros-and-Cons-of-Adoption-vs-Abortion</ref>

==On The Adoptive Family==
Adoption gives many benefits to families who wish for a child of their own yet abortion does not serve to help these people but rather makes it harder for them to fulfill their aspirations as Adoptive rates have fallen due to the increase in abortion.<ref> http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html</ref>. The benefits are:

1.A couple, in which one of the partners are infertile, will have a chance to obtain a child that they can care for as their own.<ref>http://www.fertilitycommunity.com/fertility/infertility-and-adoption.html</ref> In fact, 2,000,00 couples are waiting to adopt in the USA yet only 50,000 babies are put up for adoption each year.<ref>http://www.lifemattersoutreach.org/p/abortion-info.html</ref>

2.In the United Kingdom, to encourage adoption, adoptive parents are given access to child benefit in order to ensure that they can financially afford to care for the child.<ref>http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/start/who-qualifies/adopt-foster-child.htm</ref>

3.Adoptive parents have opened their house to a child that is not their biological offspring. This is an act of unrequited love and it is logical that they would continue this and give the adopted child all the care and attention that it would not otherwise get in a household that never wanted him/her.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:abortion]]

Father's Day

2013-06-16T18:15:48Z

Ryancsh: Sentance structure

'''Father's Day''', commemorated on the third [[Sunday]] of [[June]], is in honor of the important role that [[father|fathers]] have in [[families]]. This includes their contribution to the emotional, physical, financial well being of a child.<ref>http://www.fathersdaycelebration.com/importance-of-fathers-day.html</ref> Due to these highly important contributions, Sonora Dodd<ref>http://melrosemirror.media.mit.edu/servlet/pluto?state=303034706167653030375765625061676530303269643030353138303431</ref> founded this day, to honour her father who fought in the United States civil war.

==Liberal Opposition==
There has been liberal opposition to father's day, wanting to replace it with "Family Day." This concept was created in Canada due to the legislation of [[Same sex marriage]] as it was felt to be unfair to adopted children of Same-sex couples. Such a move has been opposed by many normal parents who do not want to see this tradition being overtaken by political corectness.<ref>http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/23/parents-launch-petition-to-bring-back-fathers-day-cards-after-elementary-school-replaces-holiday-with-family-day/</ref> The Liberal opposition do not seem to care about honoring the role of the father, which is highly important for the support and the guidance for children.

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

== External links ==
*[http://frontpagemag.com/2013/larry-elder/the-lefts-war-on-fathers-day/ The Left’s War on Father’s Day on FrontPageMag.com]

[[Category:Family]]
[[Category:Holidays]]

Democratic Party

2013-06-15T13:26:02Z

Ryancsh: Removed obvious parody

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
''Democratic Party can refer to: [[Democratic Party (Mongolia)]], [[Democratic Party of Albania]], [[Democratic Party (Kenya)]] or [[Democratic Party of Serbia]]''
The '''Democratic Party''', more grammatically called the "[[Democrat Party]]," is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. In general it is [[pro-abortion]] and anti-[[free enterprise]], supporting higher taxes, anti-gun policies, and a larger government, while the [[Republican Party]] is generally [[pro-life]] and pro-free enterprise, supporting lower taxes and small government. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists. Many [[conservative]]s consider him to be the worst president to date.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century — when it supported [[slavery]] — the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." Today, there are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentious Democratic policies, especially stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> Surveys which address both the Republican House and the Democratic Senate currently has an average 78% negative approval rating, with only 13% expressing approval.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html|title=Congressional Job Approval|work=Real Clear Politics|accessdate=October 2, 2012}}</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national [[party platform]], however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions.<ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref> The Democratic party also adopts policy positions and platforms at the state and Congressional district levels.

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>
Democrats favor expanded taxpayer funding of higher education, particularly for scientific research, land-grant colleges, community colleges and historically black colleges.<ref name=ed/> President Obama established a White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-historically-black-colleges-and-universities|title=Executive Order 13532 -- Historically Black Colleges and Universities|date=February 26, 2010|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref> Democrats cut the interest rate on Stafford student loans to 3.4% and eliminated private banks as middlemen in federal student loans.<ref name=ed>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education|title=Higher Education|accessdate=November 2, 2012}}</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Health care===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. Many Democrats favor single-payer health insurance, but as a compromise supported a plan that preserves private health insurance with an individual mandate and government subsidy of premiums based on the health care plan adopted in Massachusetts. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress, and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] coverage to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]]. Others argue that the United States must compete with foreign countries where governments cover all health care costs giving foreign companies an advantage over U.S. products. Another argument is that prior to ObamaCare, uninsured people would fail to get preventative care and would go to hospital emergency rooms for treatment, resulting in higher health care costs and large subsidies paid by people with health insurance.

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders — but not blacks or Latinos — consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s or marriage. On May 9, 2012, [[Barack Obama|President Obama]] announced that he supports same-sex marriage.<ref name="ABC News">{{cite web|url=http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/obama-sex-marriage-legal-16312904|title=Obama Affirms Support for Same-Sex Marriage|date=May 9, 2012|work=ABC News}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/obama-same-sex-marriage/index.html|title=Obama announces he supports same-sex marriage|last=Gast|first=Phil|date=May 9, 2012|publisher=CNN|accessdate=November 1, 2012}}</ref>

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically, [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However, Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform — most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] and many methods of [[contraception]] — are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]]. In 2012, there was a controversy regarding a national organization of religious women ("nuns") speaking out against House Republican budget proposals. This resulted in a national publicity tour and protests called "Nuns on the Bus".

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that organized religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the [[ACLU]]. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Congress, and as a result when a member of the Alabama Supreme Court, [[Roy Moore]], posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref name="presidents">William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref name="presidents" /> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref name="presidents" /> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became a minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a national majority of the popular presidential vote only in 2008. However, the Democrats won a plurality of the popular vote in 1976, 1992, 1996 and 2000.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], adding 103 million acres of park land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]], who had pledged "no new taxes."

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South moves toward Republicans===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref>See the exit polls at {{cite web|url=http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=2004-11-02\|accessdate=2006-11-18|title=U.S. PRESIDENT / REGION: SOUTH / EXIT POLL}}</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] (DLC) attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the DLC, was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for House Majority Leader, electing Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] showed Obama being the clear favourite, with the vast majority of polls (with the exception of early September) depicting Obama as the clear favourite.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

Some critics refer to the group as the [[Democrat Party]].

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Democrats|Articles about '''Democrats''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Obamacare]]

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/2012/11/lawrence-patton-mcdonald-b_15.html A Forgotten Man: Congressman Larry McDonald]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Pizza

2013-06-15T13:22:13Z

Ryancsh: Undo revision 1056608 by JohnLambert (talk) No Evidence and "we"? language not appropiate

[[Image:Pizza.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A pizza with red onions, mushrooms, sausages, cheese, and pepperonis.]]

'''Pizza''' or '''pizza pie''' is the name of an oven-baked [[bread]] usually covered with [[tomato]] sauce and [[cheese]], and often with other toppings. While it is a typical dish of Neapolitan cuisine, it has become an extremely popular dish all over the world. Pizza was popularized in the U.S. after WW2, when returning soldiers from the Italian Front brought stories of the meal. October is the National Pizza Month in the United States.

Various toppings may be added, most typically:

* sauce, traditionally tomato-based
* cheese, traditionally mozzarella but often Provolone or a blend of other cheeses
* herbs and seasonings, like basil, oregano, or garlic
* vegetables such as tomatoes, bell peppers, mushrooms, red onions, chillies or olives
* meat or seafood, such as sliced sausage, (especially pepperoni or salami), ham, bacon, ground beef, anchovies, or chicken.

The crust is traditionally plain, but may also be seasoned with butter, garlic, or herbs, or stuffed with cheese. In some pizza recipes the tomato sauce is omitted (termed "white pizza"), or replaced with another sauce (usually garlic butter but sauces can also be made with spinach or onions). Pizza is normally eaten hot (typically at lunch or dinner), but leftovers are often eaten cold for breakfast or as a snack. It is famously served deep fried in batter in [[Scottish]] [[chip shop]]s.

Pissa is late Vulgar Latin (9th century) flat bread, and apparently came to mean a flat bread with a cheese topping by the 14th century in some Italian dialects. Many languages around the Mediterranean have similar words meaning flat bread or unleavened bread, like 'pita'.

The Italian word for a person with a talent for making pizza is pizzaiolo. A restaurant that serves pizza is called a pizzeria (from Italian); the phrase "pizza parlor" is also used in the United States and Canada. Pizza can also be purchased in grocery stores or supermarkets (usually, but not always, frozen); in many countries, pizza can also be ordered by telephone (or, increasingly, via the Web) to be delivered, hot and ready to eat, to almost any address within range of the restaurant.

In the [[United Kingdom]], pizza is a popular form of convenient take-away food often eaten at parties and other social gatherings.

== Fusion pizza ==

Pizza lends itself to adaptation by other national cuisines. Examples include:
* the chicken tikka pizza
* the All Day Breakfast pizza
* barbecue pizza, with [[barbecue sauce]] instead of the traditional tomato sauce.
*cheeseburger pizza

==Restaurants which sell pizza==
*[[Domino's Pizza]]
*[[Papa John's Pizza]]
*[[Pizza Hut]]

[[Category:Baked Goods]]
[[Category:Fast Foods]]
[[Category:Italian Food]]

User talk:Percytown4

2013-06-13T15:09:34Z

Ryancsh: Removed personal attack.

List of dictators

2013-06-13T14:59:03Z

Ryancsh: Undo revision 1056203 by Saviour (talk) Possible Parody.

: ''For a list of [[Ancient Rome|Roman]] dictators, see [[Roman dictator#Roman dictators|Roman dictator]].''
: ''See also the [[#See also|related lists]] at the end of this article.''

The following is a list of national leaders ([[Head of state|heads of state]] and/or [[Head of government|heads of government]]) commonly regarded as modern [[dictator]]s. This usage usually carries a pejorative sense and refers to a ruler who:

* Rules by decree, via an [[Enabling Act]] or similar laws passed by a legislature allowing him to do so;
* is an [[absolute ruler]] of a [[state|sovereign state]], usually appointed, but without hereditary ascension;
* governs outside the otherwise accepted [[rule of law]];
* commonly (but not necessarily) gaining power through [[fraud]], a [[coup d'état]], resorting to either again to continue in power;
* may develop a [[cult of personality]];
* may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical.

Some so-called "[[Dictator#"The benevolent dictator"|benevolent dictators]]" may be viewed as beneficial and their leadership seen as a "necessary evil".
The modern usage of the term 'dictator' developed largely in response to instances of autocratic rule in [[republic]]s, so traditional [[monarch]]s are not usually described as dictators in historical commentary. Also excluded from this list are those who held [[absolute power]] during national [[State of emergency|emergencies]], but restored the rule of law soon thereafter. Otherwise those included have been widely cited by historians or described by the [[Mass media|media]] as dictators. Any controversy surrounding such characterisation is mentioned in the notes.

The list is sorted according to when each dictator began their years in power. This refers to any years in office as a head of state, government or the like before their dictatorship was established. Any years of elected and judicial rule may be indicated parenthetically.

==Africa==
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
|align=center|[[Gamal Abdel Nasser]] ||align=center| [[Egypt]] ||align=center| 1954–1970 || Prime Minister of Egypt 1954-1962; President of Egypt 1956-1970. Part of a group of officers in control of Egypt after the coup against British supported [[Farouk of Egypt|King Farouk]] in 1952; In February 1954, Nasser forced {{fact}} President [[Muhammad Naguib]] to appoint him prime minister and give up most practical power to him; later in that year Naguib resigned and Nasser became president by self-appointment; elected by popular vote (as only candidate) in 1956, and subsequently. Many personalistic elements to Nasser's rule, but nominal parliamentary system under Nasser's 1956-1970 presidency {{fact}}, until his death in 1970.
|-
|align=center|[[Ahmed Sékou Touré]] ||align=center| [[Guinea]] ||align=center| 1958–1984 || President of Guinea. Widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DIAINS.html], [http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/world/awards2003/profile_jazz.shtml]) with estimates of up to 50,000 extra-judicial killings during his rule (see [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat6.htm]) and 250,000 Guineans fleeing his rule ([http://www.africanet.com/africanet/country/guinea/history.htm]).
|-
|align=center|[[David Dacko]] ||align=center| [[Central African Republic]] ||align=center| 1960–1966 1979–1981 || President of the Central African Republic. Banned opposition (see [http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad36]); Gained power by coup in 1979, though subsequently stood for election (see [http://www.african-geopolitics.org/show.aspx?ArticleId=3638]).
|-
|align=center|[[Modibo Keita]] ||align=center| [[Mali]] ||align=center| 1960–1968 || Schoolteacher and first president of Mali. Forced socialization and extensive protectionism severely harmed the economy and continued the country's dependence on aid donors. Discontent with these policies led Keita to implement his own "Cultural Revolution" and establish a network of people's militias to inform on and punish dissent. In the last few years of his presidency, full powers were vested in an extralegal "National Committee for Defense of the Revolution". He was deposed in a military coup.
|-
|align=center|[[François (Ngarta) Tombalbaye|François Tombalbaye]] ||align=center| [[Chad]] ||align=center| 1960–1975 || Head of State 1960-1962; President of Chad 1962-1975. Never fought a contested election; imprisoned opposition leaders. Launched a "Cultural Revolution" in the early 1970s encouraging ''[[authenticité]]''.
|-
|align=center|[[Félix Houphouët-Boigny]] ||align=center| [[Côte d'Ivoire]] ||align=center| 1960–1993 || President of Côte d'Ivoire. Ruled until 1990 with all opposition banned, but not considered particularly repressive. Relocated the official capital to his home village of [[Yamoussoukro]] and constructed the [[Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro]], the largest religious structure in Africa.
|-
|align=center|[[Milton Obote]] ||align=center| [[Uganda]] ||align=center| 1962–1972 1980–1985 || Prime Minister of Uganda 1962-1966; President of Uganda 1966-1971 and 1980-1985. Suspended the constitution and declared himself President and Prime Minister in 1966.
|-
|align=center|[[Hastings Kamuzu Banda]] ||align=center| [[Malawi]] ||align=center| 1963–1994 || Prime Minister of Malawi 1963-1966; President of Malawi 1966-1994. Banned all opposition in 1966; declared himself [[President for Life]] in 1971; exiled and killed opposition leaders. Ordered that a letter bomb be sent to exiled opposition leader [[Attati Mpakati]]; suspected of being involved in the car crash deaths of senior Congress Party leaders; violently crushed an attempted rebellion. Aged 98, he allowed and lost a free election in 1994.
|-
|align=center|[[Kenneth Kaunda]] ||align=center| [[Zambia]] ||align=center| 1964–1991 || President of the Republic of Zambia 1964-1991.Elected 1964, banned all political parties in Zambia, viewed himself as "WAMUYAYA" (eternal President).Accused of torturing political opponents.Defeated by Frederick Chiluba in 1991.
|-
|align=center|[[Houari Boumediene]] ||align=center| [[Algeria]] ||align=center| 1965–1978 || 
President of Algeria from June 19, 1965 to his death, (December 27, 1978); Chairman of the Revolutionary Council until December 12, 1976). In June 1965, Boumédienne seized power in a bloodless coup. Initially lacking a personal power base, he was seen as a weak ruler. But after a botched coup attempt against him by military officers in 1967 he tightened his rule, and then remained Algeria's undisputed ruler until his death in 1978.
|-
|align=center|[[Modibo Keita]] ||align=center| [[Mali]] ||align=center| 1960–1968 || Schoolteacher and first president of Mali. Forced socialization and extensive protectionism severely harmed the economy and continued the country's dependence on aid donors. Discontent with these policies led Keita to implement his own "Cultural Revolution" and establish a network of people's militias to inform on and punish dissent. In the last few years of his presidency, full powers were vested in an extralegal "National Committee for Defense of the Revolution". He was deposed in a military coup.
|-
|align=center|[[Jean-Bédel Bokassa]] ||align=center| [[Central African Republic]] ||align=center| 1966–1979 || President of the Central African Republic 1966-1976; Emperor Bokassa I of the Central African Empire 1976-1979. Bokassa overthrew the autocratic Dacko in a swift coup d'état and assumed power as president of the Republic and head of the sole political party, the Mouvement pour l'évolution sociale de l'Afrique Noire (MESAN). Bokassa abolished the constitution of 1959 on January 4 and began to rule by decree. He proclaimed himself emperor in 1976 (see [http://www.african-geopolitics.org/show.aspx?ArticleId=3638]).
|-
|align=center|[[Gnassingbé Eyadéma]] ||align=center| [[Togo]] ||align=center| 1967–2005 || President of Togo. Gained power in a coup; never fought a contested election until 1998; banned, tortured and killed opposition. Fostered a cult of personality that was reinforced after he was the sole survivor of an airplane crash in 1974. In late 1991, troops loyal to Eyadéma closed a constitutional conference that had shifted most executive power to a new transitional government and banned Eyadéma's RPT party. January 1993 saw a mass exodus of residents to neighboring states after security forces fired on pro-democracy demonstrators. Further repression followed a purported 1994 coup attempt (see[http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/mar/data/togoewechro.htm]).
|-
|align=center|[[Omar Bongo]] ||align=center| [[Gabon]] ||align=center| 1967–2009 || As vice president, he acceded to the presidency following the death of President [[Léon M'ba]]. In 1968, Bongo decreed a one-party state under his [[Gabonese Democratic Party]] and was thrice elected unopposed in the 1970s and 1980s. He became very wealthy during the country's oil boom. Open elections were held in 1990 and Bongo was re-elected in 1993, 1998 and 2005. Observers have criticized the elections as unfair and corruption watchdogs have accused the president of [[nepotism]]. Riots resulting from the mysterious death in 1990 of prominent dissident [[Joseph Rendjambe]] in a government hotel room were put down by French troops.
|-
|align=center|[[Moussa Traoré]] ||align=center| [[Mali]] ||align=center| 1968–1991 || Chairman of the Military National Liberation Committee 1968-1969; Head of State 1969-1979; President of Mali 1979-1991. Seized power in a coup; banned all opposition; installed a police state; established one-party state in 1979.
|-
|align=center|[[Francisco Macías Nguema]] ||align=center| [[Equatorial Guinea]] ||align=center| 1968–1979 || President of Equatorial Guinea 1968-1979. Elected in 1968 but declared himself [[President for Life]] in 1972; "extreme personality cult"; over a third of population fled his regime. Banned fishing and sanctioned the deaths of most of his pre-independence political rivals, including ex-prime minister [[Bonifacio Ondó Edu]] and foreign minister [[Atanasio Ndongo Miyone]]. Declared an atheist state by Spanish dictator [[Francisco Franco]]. As many as 50,000 civilians were killed, in particular those of the [[Bubi]] ethnic [[minority]] on [[Bioko]] associated with relative wealth and [[intellectual]]ism.
|-
|align=center|[[Gaafar Nimeiry]] ||align=center| [[Sudan]] ||align=center| 1969–1985 || Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council 1969-1971; President of Sudan 1971-1985. Gained power in a military coup, banned opposition, dissolved southern Sudanese government, imposed sharia law. Executed several leading communists (the most prominent being [[Abdel Khaliq Mahjub]] and [[Joseph Garang]]) after a botched 1971 coup attempt.
|-
|align=center|[[Mohamed Siad Barre]] ||align=center| [[Somalia]] ||align=center| 1969–1991 || Chairman of the Supreme Revolutionary Council 1969-1976; President of Somalia 1976-1991. In 1969, during the power vacuum following the assassination of President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, the military staged a coup and took over. Barre was to rule for the next twenty-two years. He attempted to develop a personality cult; large posters of him were common in the capital Mogadishu during his reign, many of which can still be seen today. He dreamed of a "[[Greater Somalia]]" and tried unsuccessfully to annex the [[Ogaden]]—legally Ethiopian territory—in 1977 to realize this end (see [[Ogaden War]]).
|-
|align=center|[[Anwar Sadat]] || align=center|[[Egypt]] || align=center|1970-1981 || President of Egypt 1970-1981. Unelected, suppressed opposition in what was termed "The Corrective Revolution". Assassinated.
|-
|align=center|[[Idi Amin]] ||align=center| [[Uganda]] ||align=center| 1971–1979 || [[President of Uganda]], later (1976) declared as [[President for Life|for Life]]. Deposed in 1979 after declaring war on [[Tanzania]].
|-
|align=center|[[Mengistu Haile Mariam]] ||align=center| [[Ethiopia]] ||align=center| 1974–1991 || Chairman of the Provisional Military Administrative Council ([[Derg]]) in 1974 and 1977-1987; President of Ethiopia 1987-1991. One-party state; repression of opposition; tens of thousands of extra-judicial killings.
|-
|align=center|[[Olusegun Obasanjo]] ||align=center| [[Nigeria]] ||align=center| 1976-1979 || Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria between 1976 and 1979. Elected President of Nigeria in 1999. Chairman of the [[African Union]] 2004-2006.
|-
|align=center|[[Jean-Baptiste Bagaza]] ||align=center| [[Burundi]] ||align=center| 1976–1987 || President of Burundi. Widely described as a military dictator (see [http://www.africanews.com/article265.html], [http://www.electionworld.org/history/burundi.htm]).
|-
|align=center|[[Albert René]] ||align=center| [[Seychelles]] ||align=center| 1977–2004 || President of Seychelles. Deposed the elected president Sir [[James Mancham]] and promulgated a one-party constitution after a period of rule by decree. Created the [[National Youth Service]] (NYS), a compulsory educational institution that included traditional curricula interlaced with political indoctrination and paramilitary training.
|-
|align=center|[[Daniel arap Moi]] ||align=center| [[Kenya]] ||align=center| 1978–2002 || President of Kenya. Changed constitution to establish a ''de jure'' one-party state; resorted to repressive rule, including torture and imprisonment without trial.
|-
|align=center|[[Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo]] ||align=center| [[Equatorial Guinea]] ||align=center| '''1979–present''' || Chairman of the Supreme Military Council 1979-1982; President of Equatorial Guinea 1982-present. Deposed his uncle in a violent coup; opposition is banned in all but name.
|-
|align=center|[[José Eduardo dos Santos]] ||align=center| [[Angola]] ||align=center| '''1979–present''' || President of Angola. One-party state; did not stand for election until 1992 (see [http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2000/Angola_Marques_00/Angola_Marques_00.html]).
|-
|align=center|[[João Bernardo Vieira]] ||align=center| [[Guinea-Bissau]] ||align=center| 1980-1984 and '''2005-present''' || become president by a coup. killing and exiled opposition. faoumes for the [[Guinea-Bissau Civil War]].
|-
|align=center|[[Samuel K. Doe]] ||align=center| [[Liberia]] ||align=center| 1980–1990 || Chairman of the People's Redemption Council 1980-1984; President of Liberia 1984-1990. Gained power in a military coup that killed President [[William R. Tolbert, Jr.]], a [[Reform movement|reformer]]. Promoted [[Krahn]] chauvinism and "died a multi-millionaire and proud owner of mansions and estates" (see[http://www.theperspective.org/2004/oct/bookpeople.html]).
|-
|align=center|[[Robert Mugabe]] ||align=center| [[Zimbabwe]] ||align=center| '''1980–present''' ||
Gained power through election, and repeatedly re-elected, but criticized for steps used to maintain power. From 1999 on, used police and militant groups like the War Veterans Association and [[Border Gezi Youth]] to enforce [[ZANU-PF]] policies and to prevent opponents from voting; called "king" by his aides.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1709488.stm] Arrested and tortured opponents and human rights activists; gave amnesty to murderers of his political opponents in 2000; ignores court rulings.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,410850,00.html]
|-
|align=center|[[Jerry Rawlings]] ||align=center| [[Ghana]] ||align=center| 1981-1992 || Gained power in a military coup during 1979 but handed it over. Re-took power in another coup of 1981. Elected President in 1992 and again in 1996 before standing aside as per the constitution.
|-
|align=center|[[André Kolingba]] ||align=center| [[Central African Republic]] ||align=center| 1981–1993 || Chairman of the Military Committee of National Recovery 1981-1985; President of the Central African Republic 1985-1993. Gained power in a coup; persecuted opposition; allowed (and lost) free elections in 1993. Attempted second coup in 2001.
|-
|align=center|[[Hosni Mubarak]] || align=center|[[Egypt]] || align=center| 1981-2011 || Former President of Egypt. Did not stand in a contested election until 2005, when a highly-restricted democratic process was allowed. Was forced from power after a series of mass protests.
|-
|align=center|[[Paul Biya]] ||align=center| [[Cameroon]] ||align=center| '''1982–present''' || He served under President Ahmadou Ahidjo and became Prime Minister in 1975. Ahidjo resigned on November 6, 1982 and Biya became president. After years of totalitarian rule, he allowed the creation of opposition parties in 1990 but his re-elections have been marked by widespread fraud and intimidation.
|-
|align=center|[[Hissène Habré]] ||align=center| [[Chad]] ||align=center| 1982–1990 || Chairman of the Council of State 1982; President of Chad 1982-1990. Gained power in a coup; abolished post of Prime Minister; executed opposition leaders.
|-
|align=center|[[Thomas Sankara]] ||align=center| [[Burkina Faso]] ||align=center| 1983-1987 || President of Upper Volta 1983-1984; President of Burkina Faso 1984-1987. Gained power in coup. Lead millitary regime. Overthrown and killed in coup.
|-
|align=center|[[Maaouya Ould Sid'Ahmed Taya]] ||align=center| [[Mauritania]] ||align=center| 1984–2005 || Deposed the military head of state, [[Mohamed Khouna Ould Haidalla]], on December 1984 and declared himself Chairman of the Military Committee for National Salvation. Deposed by [[Ely Ould Mohamed Vall]] in a bloodless coup d'état. 
|-
|align=center|[[Ibrahim Babangida]] ||align=center| [[Nigeria]] ||align=center| 1985-1993 || Annulled the most free and fair presidential election in the history of Nigeria, leading to the death of the presidenstial candidate [[Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola]].
|-
|align=center|[[Zine El Abidine Ben Ali]] ||align=center| [[Tunisia]] ||align=center| 1987–2011 || President of Tunisia. Although he announced [[Pluralism#Plualism in politics|political pluralism]] in 1992, his Democratic Constitutional Rally (formerly Neo-Destour party) continues to dominate the national politics and there is no genuine open political debate. In 1999, although two unknown alternative candidates were permitted for the first time to stand in the presidential elections, Ben Ali was re-elected with 99.66% of the vote. A controversial constitutional referendum in 2002 allowed him to seek re-election and contemplate the possibility of remaining in office until 2014. On October 24, 2004, he was again re-elected, officially taking 94.48% of the vote. Certain books, periodicals and internet sites are banned or blocked. The [http://www.tunisiatv.com National Television] frequently show his actions during a week, but often the President only appears in passing on television. In 2011 he was forced from power after mass protests.
|-
|align=center|[[Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir]] ||align=center| [[Sudan]] ||align=center| '''1989–present''' || President of the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation 1989-1993; President of Sudan 1993-present. Took power in a military coup and increasingly centralized power into himself. Widely believed to be implicated in the [[Darfur]] [[Janjaweed]] [[pogrom]]s.
|-
|align=center|[[Idriss Déby]] ||align=center| [[Chad]] ||align=center| '''1990–present''' || Head of State 1990-1991; President of Chad 1991 to date. Gained power in a coup; continues to suppress opposition and press (see [http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/tcd-summary-eng]).
|-
|align=center|[[Sani Abacha]] ||align=center| [[Nigeria]] ||align=center| 1993–1998 || Chairman of the Provisional Ruling Council 1993-1998. Seized power in a coup; persecuted opposition; never stood for election. Jailed Chief [[Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola]], the presumed winner of the annulled 1993 presidential election; presided over execution of activist [[Ken Saro-Wiwa]].
|-
|align=center|[[Paul Kagame]] || align=center|[[Rwanda]] || align=center|'''1994-present''' || Vice-President of Rwanda 1994-2000; President 2000-Present. Brouhgt to power by a guerilla movement which plunged the country into bloodshed and led to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Responsible of the the killings of innocent civilians, women and children in Kibeho refugee camp. Responsible of the killings of 4 millions congolese. Responsible of the killings of Priests and Archbishops in Kabgayi.
|-
|align=center|[[Yahya Jammeh]] ||align=center| [[The Gambia]] ||align=center| '''1994-Present''' || President of The Gambia. Gained power in coup d'état. Right to the press and free speech supressed. Stood for three elections (1996, 2001, and 2006); last election deemed unfair by opposition.
|-
|align=center|[[Laurent-Désiré Kabila]] ||align=center| [[Congo-Kinshasa]] ||align=center| 1997–2001 || President of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Overthrew [[Mobutu Sese Seko]] in coup. No elections held during ongoing, interstate [[First Congo War|First]] and [[Second Congo War]]s.
|-
|align=center|[[Charles G. Taylor]] ||align=center| [[Liberia]] ||align=center| 1997–2003 || President of Liberia 1997-2003. Elected, but widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.guardian.co.uk/sierra/article/0,2763,221878,00.html], [http://www.cij.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewNews&newsID=9], [http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/127/48.0.html]). Linked to "[[blood diamonds]]" and illegal arms trading. Believed to have interfered frequently in the internal affairs of neighboring states while a [[warlord]], before his election to the presidency.
|-
|align=center|[[François Bozizé]] ||align=center| [[Central African Republic]] ||align=center| 2003–2013 || President of the Central African Republic 2003 to date. Gained power in a coup and suspended the constitution, though he has restored some democracy (see [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/28/1456242]).
|-
|align=center|[[Ely Ould Mohamed Vall]] ||align=center| [[Mauritania]] ||align=center| 2005-2007 || Chairman of the Military Council for Justice and Democracy. Gained power via a military coup. Though he has said to relinquish power to an elected government in 2007.
|-
|align=center|[[Michael Sata]] ||align=center| [[Zambia]] ||align=center| '''2011–present''' || Elected President of Zambia. Sata shut down the opposition and maintains relationships with [[Robert Mugabe]].
|-
|align=center|[[Mohamed Morsi]] ||align=center| [[Egypt]] ||align=center| '''2012–present''' || Supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. Described Jews as "apes and pigs". Massively expanded his presidential authority upon being elected, giving himself unlimited powers.
|}

==The Americas==
===North America===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Agustín de Iturbide]] || align=center|[[Mexico]] || align=center|1822 - 1823 || Shortly after the Mexican War of Independence, he was declared Emperor of Mexico in 1822. Repressive, cracked down on free speech and any opposition. Desposed when popular opposition forced him to abdicate.
|-
| align=center|[[Antonio López de Santa Anna|Antonio López de Santa Anna]] || align=center|[[Mexico]] || align=center|1833 - 1855 (intermittent) || President or Provisional President of Mexico 1833-1837, then 1841 to February 1844, June to December 1844, March to September 1847 and finally 1853-1855. When [[Anastasio Bustamante]] led a coup overthrowing and killing President [[Vicente Guerrero]], Santa Anna seized power and then was elected President in 1833. At first he gave a free hand to his vice-president [[Valentín Gómez Farías]], a liberal reformer. Later he dismissed Gómez Farías, declared the Constitution suspended, disbanded the Congress and worked to concentrate power in the central government. He was overthrown and restored to power several times before his final overthrow in 1855.
|-
| align=center|[[Porfirio Díaz]] || align=center|[[Mexico]] || align=center|1879 - 1910 || Interim president 1876-1877; President of Mexico 1877-1880, 1884-1911. ''De facto'' ruler 1880-1884. Gained power in a coup, after his Revolution of Tuxtepac overthrew his predecessor, Lerdo. He did not run for reelection after his first term in order to keep his one-term promises that he made during his revolution. However, he retook the presidency a few years later and did not leave from power until the [[Mexican Revolution|Revolution of 1910]] kicked him from the Presidency. His rule saw the rapid modernization of Mexico, progress mainly caused by Diaz's encouragement of foreign investment in the country's infrastructure. However, the poor became quite miserable during this time. Political opposition was squelched and rebellions were put down by the ''rurals'', Diaz's personal guard. He was eventually overthrown by the [[Mexican Revolution|Revolution]] which lasted 10 years.
|-
| align=center|[[Victoriano Huerta]] || align=center|[[Mexico]] || align=center|1913 - 1914 || Appointed president, established a military dictatorship for about a year, and then was forced to resign.
|}

===Central America===
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Rafael Carrera]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1844–1848 1851–1865 || President of Guatemala. Gained power in a coup; styled himself [[President for Life]].
|-
|align=center|[[William Walker]] ||align=center| [[Nicaragua]] ||align=center| 1856-1857 || An american fillibuster takes over and proclaims himself President of Nicaragua. Tried to conquer several central american countries. Eventually executed.
|-
| align=center|[[Justo Rufino Barrios]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1873–1885 || President of Guatemala. Gained power in a bloody coup, but introduced reforms.
|-
| align=center|[[Manuel Estrada Cabrera]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1898–1920 || President of Guatemala. Never elected; subverted constitution; widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033093], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558775/Estrada_Cabrera_Manuel.html]). Constructed numerous large [[Ancient Greece|Hellenic]]-style temples as monuments to his rule.
|-
| align=center|[[Maximiliano Hernández Martínez]] || align=center|[[El Salvador]] || align=center|1931–1934 1935–1944 || Acting President 1931-1934; President of El Salvador 1935-1944. Gained power in a coup; suppressed opposition; oversaw massacre of between ten and forty thousand suspected opponents. Presided over ''[[1932 Salvadoran peasant uprising|La Matanza]]'' in 1932, a massacre (genocide) of communists, suspected communists, [[campesinos]] and [[Pipil]] Indians (see [http://countrystudies.us/el-salvador/7.htm]).
|-
| align=center|[[Jorge Ubico]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1931–1944 || President of Guatemala. Elected, but suppressed opposition and "assumed dictatorial powers".
|-
| align=center|[[Tiburcio Carías Andino]] || align=center|[[Honduras]] || align=center|1933–1949 || President of Honduras. Banned opposition and set up a [[Rubberstamp (politics)|rubber-stamp]] congress; suppressed unions (see[http://countrystudies.us/honduras/19.htm]).
|-
| align=center|[[Anastasio Somoza García]] || align=center|[[Nicaragua]] || align=center|1937–1956 || Somoza used his position as head of the [[National Guard (Nicaragua)|National Guard]] to overthrow President [[Juan Bautista Sacasa]]; centralized constitutional authority under his control; alternately rigged elections for himself or installed relatives in his place; kleptocrat.[http://www.immigrantinfo.org/kin/nicaragua.htm][http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-9212.html].
|-
| align=center|[[Carlos Castillo Armas]] || align=center|[[Guatemala]] || align=center|1954–1957 || Junta Chairman, 1954; President of Guatemala 1954-1957. Gained power in a coup; banned the popular [[Guatemalan Party of Labour|Communist party]]; purged trade unions of leftist influence; declared himself president in 1956. Assassinated.
|-
| align=center|[[Oswaldo López Arellano]] || align=center|[[Honduras]] || align=center|1963–1971 1972–1975 || Head of Military Government 1963-1965; President of Honduras 1965-1971; Head of State 1972-1975. Military officer who allowed elections in 1971 before re-seizing power the next year. According to Clara Nieto in ''Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution through the Clinton years'', p. 114 (ISBN 1-58322-545-5): "During this second term (1972-1975) López governed without a congress and by decree."
|-
| align=center|[[Anastasio Somoza Debayle]] || align=center|[[Nicaragua]] || align=center|1967-1979 || Succeeded his somewhat more liberal brother [[Luis Somoza Debayle|Luis]]; stepped down briefly in 1972, then resumed the presidency after an earthquake; outlawed several opposition parties; declared [[martial law]] in response to guerilla opposition; oversaw brutal repression by the National Guard.
|-
| align=center|[[Omar Torrijos]] || align=center|[[Panama]] || align=center|1968–1981 || Commander of the National Guard. Gained power in a coup; banned opposition, unions and free press.
|-
| align=center|[[Manuel Noriega]] || align=center|[[Panama]]|| align=center|1983–1989 || Commander of the National Guard and ''de facto'' military leader, widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9056130], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561240/Noriega_Moreno_Manuel_Antonio.html], [http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/8155061.htm]).
|}

===South America===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1813-1814 and 1814-1840 ||gained power in election. Outlawed all opposition. Installed a police state. Cult of personality; citizens forced to raise their hats or a brim when he passed by; styled himself with the position name "El Supremo". 
|-
| align=center| [[Simón Bolívar]] || align=center| [[Gran Columbia]] || align=center| 1821-1830 || Though an admirer of classical liberal democracy, the founder and president of Gran Colombia proclaimed himself dictator in 1828 after an unsuccessful constitutional convention. Resigned eighteen months later.
|-
| align=center|[[Juan Manuel de Rosas]] || align=center|[[Argentina]] || align=center|1835–1852 || Governor of Buenos Aires 1829-1832, 1835-1852; Supreme Chief of the Argentine Confederation 1851-1852. Assumed dictatorial powers; exiled opponents.
|-
| align=center|[[Carlos Antonio López]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1841–1862 || First Consul 1841-1844; President of Paraguay 1844-1862. 
|-
| align=center|[[Manuel Belzu]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1848–1855 || Provisional President of Bolivia 1848-1850; President of Bolivia 1850-1855. Unelected military ruler; ''[[caudillo]]''. A populist and nationalist who voluntarily relinquished power after 1855 elections, described in (ISBN 0-13-524356-4), p.131, as the "cleanest ever held" in (early) Bolivian history.
|-
| align=center|[[Francisco Solano López]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1862–1869 || President of Paraguay. Inherited power from his father; had himself awarded immense powers by a congress he had packed with supporters. Killed in the [[War of the Triple Alliance]] (which Lopez had caused by invading Brazil), along with 90 per cent of the Paraguayan adult (age 14+) male population.
|-
| align=center|[[Mariano Melgarejo]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1864–1871 || Provisional President 1864-1870; President of Bolivia 1870-1871. Gained power in a coup and ruthlessly suppressed opposition. In 1869 he sent the army to suppress an uprising by [[Huaichu]] Indians attempting to regain land privileges they enjoyed under President Belzu (see ISBN 1-55753-324-5).
|-
| align=center|[[Antonio Guzmán Blanco]] || align=center|[[Venezuela]] || align=center|1870–1888 || Acting President of Venezuela 1863, 1865; General-in-chief April-July 1870; Provisional President of Venezuela 1870-1873; President of Venezuela 1873 - 1877; Supreme Director 1879; Provisional President of Venezuela 1879 - 1880; President of Venezuela 1880 -1884, 1886 -1888. Described, perhaps inaccurately, as a "benevolent despot"; other sources mention his "long dictatorship" (see[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:ghIhQZ7WhgUJ:www.normangall.com/artigos/Church_Militant.pdf+Antonio+Guzm%C3%A1n+Blanco+%22dictator%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Cipriano Castro]] || align=center|[[Venezuela]] || align=center|1899–1909 || Supreme Chief 1899-1901; Provisional President 1901 - 1902, 1904 - 1905; President of Venezuela 1902 - 1904, 1905 - 1909. Took over in a military coup (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:kdvql1ZK2-4J:www.sg.inter.edu/revista-ciscla/volume29/singh.pdf+Antonio+Guzm%C3%A1n+Blanco+%22dictator%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Rafael Reyes]] || align=center|[[Colombia]] || align=center|1904–1909 || President 1904 - 1909, as a military ruler representing the Conservatives. "In the course of his regime, Reyes improved the country’s finances, expanded roads and railroads, and encouraged increased coffee production. Large U.S. investments and purchases of coffee and minerals contributed to Colombia’s economic growth. However, Reyes ruled as a dictator. He dissolved the congress and replaced it with a handpicked legislature, jailed and exiled political opponents, and declared martial law." (''Colombia'', [[Encarta|Microsoft Encarta]] 2003)
|-
| align=center|[[Juan Vicente Gómez]] || align=center|[[Venezuela]] || align=center|1909–1914 1922–1929 1931–1935 || Provisional President 1909-1910; President of Venezuela 1910-1914, 1922-1929, 1931-1935. Gained power in a coup; never elected; kleptocrat; widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9037322], [http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/movie.html?v_id=156078], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761563557/Juan_Vicente_Gomez.html]).
|-
| align=center|[[Óscar Benavides]] || align=center|[[Peru]] || align=center|1914–1915 1933–1939 || Junta Chairman 1914; President of Peru 1914-1915, 1933-1939. Twice gained power by coup.
|-
| align=center|[[Augusto B. Leguía y Salcedo|Augusto Leguía]] || align=center|[[Peru]] || 1919–1930 || President of Peru. Gained power in a coup; ignored constitution; suppressed and exiled opposition.
|-
| align=center|[[Carlos Ibáñez del Campo]] || align=center|[[Chile]] || align=center|1927–1931 || Acting President 1927, President 1927 - 1931. Democratically elected to a six-year term in 1952.
|-
| align=center|[[Getúlio Vargas]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1930–1934 1937–1945 || Head of provisional government 1930-1934 after revolution; indirectly elected as Constitutional President 1934-1937; launched a coup in 1937 and became dictator 1937-1945; democratically-elected President of Brazil 1950-1954.
|-
| align=center|[[Gabriel Terra]] || align=center|[[Uruguay]] || align=center|1931–1938 || President of Uruguay. Suspended congress and dissolved constitution in 1933. 
|-
| align=center|[[Higinio Morínigo]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1940–1948 || Provisional president 1940-1943; President of Paraguay 1943-1948. Seized absolute power; ruled by [[diktat]] until 1946.
|-
| align=center|[[Manuel Odría]] || align=center|[[Peru]] || align=center|1948–1956 || Chairman of military junta 1948 - 1950; President of Peru 1950 - 1956. Gained power in a coup; restricted civil rights; allowed election in 1956.
|-
| align=center|[[Marcos Pérez Jiménez]] || align=center|[[Venezuela]] || align=center|1948–1958 || Member of military junta 1948 - 1952; Provisional president 1952 -1953; President of Venezuela 1953 - 1958. Never elected; pursued opposition violently; credited with improvements to the country's infrastructure.
|-
| align=center|[[Gustavo Rojas Pinilla]] || align=center|[[Colombia]] || align=center|1953–1957 || President of Colombia. Gained power in a coup.
|-
| align=center|[[Alfredo Stroessner]] || align=center|[[Paraguay]] || align=center|1954–1989 || President of Paraguay. He took over in a military coup (see[http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19890301faessay5951/riordan-roett/paraguay-after-stroessner.html], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:vqkaVDmcvaIJ:www.columbia.edu/cu/polisci/pdf-files/apsa_krutz.pdf+Stroessner+dictator],[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:qfMgvA6bakgJ:users.ox.ac.uk/~newc1465/Proudman%2520-%2520SoftPowerMeetsHard.pdf+Stroessner+dictator]). 
|-
| align=center|[[Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco|Humberto Castelo Branco]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1964–1967 || President of Brazil. Gained power in a coup; abolished most opposition; subsequently appointed by congress.
|-
| align=center|[[René Barrientos]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1964–1969 || Chairman of the military junta, 1964-January 1966 (jointly with [[Alfredo Ovando]] 1965-1966); President of Bolivia, August 1966 - 1969. Gained power in military coup; kleptocrat; responsible for [[Catavi massacre]] and execution of [[Che Guevara]] (ISBN 0-85345-991-6), p.136.
|-
| align=center|[[Forbes Burnham]] || align=center|[[Guyana]] || align=center|1966–1985 || Prime Minister 1966 - 1980; President 1980 - 1985. Elected, but became increasingly dictatorial; held dubious elections and encouraged leftist religious cults (such as the [[Peoples Temple]]) to settle in the Guyanese interior (see [http://www.jagan.org/janet_jagan29.htm], [http://www.hardbeatnews.com/editor/RTE/my_documents/my_files/details.asp?newsid=4498&title=Politics]).
|-
| align=center|[[Artur da Costa e Silva]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1967–1969 || President of Brazil 1967-1969. Elected in 1966, but centralised power; closed the Congress; banned opposition; suspended free press. Decreed [[Institutional Act No. 5]], described as "the most unconstitutional, anti-democratic, arbitrary, and repressive decree in Brazil's history." (ISBN 1-58322-545-5), p.167.
|-
| align=center|[[Emílio Garrastazu Médici]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1969–1974 || President of Brazil. Appointed by congress, but instituted a military government; suppressed press and opposition (see[http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/62/index.rtf]).
|-
| align=center|[[Hugo Banzer]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1971–1978 || President of Bolivia. Gained power in a coup; suppressed opposition; closed universities; 3,000 opponents arrested, 200 killed.
|-
| align=center|[[Juan María Bordaberry]] || align=center|[[Uruguay]] || align=center|1972–1976 || President of Uruguay 1972 - 1976. Elected, but installed a military government, dissolved Congress, suspended civil liberties and banned unions.
|-
| align=center|[[Augusto Pinochet]] || align=center|[[Chile]] || align=center|1973–1990 || Chairman of military junta 1973-1974; Supreme Head of the Nation 1974; President of Chile 1974 - 1990. Gained power in a coup; suppressed and exiled opposition; over 3000 "[[Forced disappearance|disappearances]]" and 28,000 tortured.
|-
| align=center|[[Ernesto Geisel]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1974-1979 || Congress-appointed President of Brazil. The fourth of the military dictators; party and union freedom were still inexistent during his term; had oppositionists like journalist [[Wladimir Herzog]] and factory worker [[Manoel Fiel Filho]] tortured and murdered.
|-
| align=center|[[Jorge Rafael Videla]] || align=center|[[Argentina]] || align=center|1976–1981 || President of Argentina. Gained power in a coup; never elected; between ten and thirty thousand opponents killed.
|-
| align=center|[[João Baptista de Oliveira Figueiredo]] || align=center|[[Brazil]] || align=center|1979-1985 || Congress-appointed President of Brazil. Society won some democratic measures these years, but there was still a major fraud during 1982 State government elections. His government was responsible for the 1983 bomb in the Riocentro.
|-
| align=center|[[Dési Bouterse]] || align=center|[[Suriname]] || align=center|1980–1988 || Chairman of the National Military Council 1980-1988. Gained power in a coup; never elected; widespread misrule. Most infamous atrocity is the ''[[Decembermoorden]]''.
|-
| align=center|[[Luis García Meza Tejada]] || align=center|[[Bolivia]] || align=center|1980–1981 || President of Bolivia. Gained power in the "Cocaine Coup" aided by [[Klaus Barbie]]; highly repressive; over 1,000 killed.
|-
| align=center|[[Gregorio Conrado Álvarez]] || align=center|[[Uruguay]] || align=center|1981–1985 || President of Uruguay. Ignored constitution; extensive human rights abuses (see [http://www.rulers.org/indexa2.html]).
|-
| align=center|[[Leopoldo Galtieri]] || align=center|[[Argentina]] || align=center|1981–1982 || President of Argentina 1981-1982. Gained power in a coup (see[http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,,873601,00.html], [http://english.pravda.ru/world/2003/01/14/41968.html]). Deposed after failed [[Falklands War|invasion of the Falkland Islands]] in 1982.
|-
|align=center| [[Alberto Fujimori]] || align=center|[[Peru]] || align=center|1992-1993 || President of Peru 1990-2000, widely critizised for his political authoritarism. [http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n34peru_body.html][http://www.aprodeh.org.pe/fujimori/delitos-eng.htm] [http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ingles/pagina01.php]. After enjoying a certain degree of popular support, Fujimori was forced from office following controvertial third term re-election[http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/05/29/peru.elections.04/]. In 2000 political opponent Mario Vargas Llosa called Fujimori a "dictator" [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/741841.stm]. His government was also marked by the influence of the director of the SIN, [[Vladimiro Montesinos]] [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2005.00165.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=goop][http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB37/]. Currently in Peru, Fujimori is in trial for presumed charges ranging from corruption to participation in crimes against humanity. [http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/americas/peru-qna-1030.htm].
|-
|align=center|[[Hugo Chávez]] ||align=center| [[Venezuela]] ||align=center| 1999-2012 || Appointed special powers, nationalized the media and oil companies,Shut down opposition media and banned "The Simpsons."
|-

|align=center|[[Nicolás Maduro]] ||align=center| [[Venezuela]] ||align=center| '''2013-present''' || Continues the corrupt ideology of Hugo Chavez, which destroys the economy of Venezuela.
|-
|}

===Caribbean===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Jean-Jacques Dessalines]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1804-1806 || Governor-General of Haiti 1804; Emperor of Haiti (as Jacques I) 1804 - 1806. Ruled autocratically.
|-
| align=center|[[Henry Christophe]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] (northern)|| align=center|1806-1820 || Provisional Chief of the Haitian Government 1806-1807; President of Haiti 1807-1811; King of Haiti (as Henry I) 1811-1820. Ruled autocratically.
|-
| align=center|[[Pedro Santana]] || align=center|[[Dominican Republic]] || align=center|1844-1848, 1853 -1856, 1858 - 1861 || Never elected; suppressed opposition; widely considered a dictator.
|-
| align=center|[[Buenaventura Báez]] || align=center|[[Dominican Republic]] || align=center|1849-1878 (intermittent) || President of the Dominican Republic five times. Gained power following coups; never elected.
|-
| align=center|[[Ulises Heureaux]] || align=center|[[Dominican Republic]] || align=center|1882-1899 (intermittent) || President of the Dominican Republic three times. Never elected; widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.marcusgarvey.com/wmview.php?ArtID=507], [http://countrystudies.us/dominican-republic/8.htm], [http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2004.00452.x]).
|-
| align=center|[[Gerardo Machado]] || align=center|[[Cuba]] || align=center|1925-1933 || President of Cuba. A follower of [[Benito Mussolini]], he is widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=672], [http://www.highbeam.com/ref/doc0.asp?docid=1E1:MachadoG]).
|-
| align=center|[[Rafael Trujillo]] || align=center|[[Dominican Republic]] || align=center|1930-1961 || President of the Dominican Republic 1930 - 1938, 1942 - 1952; ''de facto'' ruler 1930-1961. Gained power in a coup; cult of personality (renamed the capital [[Ciudad Trujillo]]); promoted racism against Haitians and ordered the massacre of 20,000 blacks.
|-
| align=center|[[Paul Magloire]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1950-1956 || President of Haiti. Gained power in a coup; never elected.
|-
| align=center|[[François Duvalier]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1957-1971 || President of Haiti. Elected in 1957, but banned opposition; declared himself [[President for Life]] in 1964; highly repressive.
|-
| align=center|[[Fidel Castro]] || align=center|[[Cuba]] || align=center| 1959-2006 || Prime Minister of Cuba 1959-1976; President of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers from 1976. Gained power after [[Cuban Revolution|revolution]]. Castro was elected President [[Elections in Cuba|after 1976]], but within a one-party [[Communist state]].
|-
| align=center|[[Jean-Claude Duvalier]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1971-1986 || President of Haiti. Inherited presidency aged 19 from his father; never elected.
|-
| align=center|[[Eric Gairy]] || align=center|[[Grenada]] || align=center|1974-1979 || Prime Minister of Grenada 1967-1979. Widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.factbites.com/topics/Eric-Gairy], [http://www.paradise-inn-carriacou.com/grenada_revolution.php], [http://counterpunch.org/gibson06052004.html]). 
|-
| align=center|[[Raoul Cédras]] || align=center|[[Haiti]] || align=center|1991-1994 || ''De facto'' ruler for a relatively short period of time. Gained power in a coup (see [http://www.haitisupport.gn.apc.org/infamous.htm]).
|-
|align=center|[[Raul Castro]] ||align=center| [[Cuba]] ||align=center| '''2006-present''' || Appointed successor by his brother of the Communist Party of Cuba.
|-
|}

==Asia==

===Western Asia ("Middle East")===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|
|-
| align=center|[[Abdul Karim Qassem]] || align=center|[[Iraq]] || align=center|1958–1963 || Gained power by coup; viewed by some as benevolent (see [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/18/wisad18.xml]).
|-
| align=center|[[Abdul Salam Arif]] || align=center|[[Iraq]] || align=center|1963–1966 || Gained power in a coup; military ruler.
|-
| align=center|[[Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr]] || align=center|[[Iraq]] || align=center|1968–1979 || Gained power in a coup; never elected.
|-
| align=center|[[Hafez al-Assad]] || align=center|[[Syria]] || align=center|1970–2000 ||Gained power in a coup; totalitarian;{{fact}} cult of personality; oversaw [[Hama massacre]] yielding twenty to forty thousand dead (see [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012197]).
|-
| align=center|[[Ruhollah Khomeini]] || align=center|[[Iran]] || align=center|1979–1989 || As [[Supreme Leader of Iran|Supreme Leader]], held ultimate and uncontested authority over all government matters under the principle of [[Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists|Guardianship]]. Created the extra-constitutional [[Special Clerical Court]] system in 1987, accountable only to the Supreme Leader and used principally for suppression of political dissent. Instituted routine torture, beheadings for children.
|-
| align=center|[[Saddam Hussein]] || align=center|[[Iraq]] || align=center|1979–2003 || Pressured Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr to resign in 1979 and formally became president. Repressive; developed extensive personality cult; deposed by [[United States]] and coalition forces in an invasion.
|-
| align=center|[[Ali Khamenei|Ayatollah Ali Khamenei]]||align=center| [[Iran]] ||align=center| '''1989-present''' || Continues Khomeini's [[Islamist]] path & uses religion as a tool, cracks down on all authentic dissent, tortures, and has given orders that permit killings like that of [[Akbar Mohammadi]] and [[Zahra Kazemi]]. Only permitts [[government-organized demonstrations]]. Allows a multi-party government but disallows the candidacy of true moderates.[http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=9940][http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1527919/][http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200505310823.asp][http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1154652871.shtml][http://isd.georgetown.edu/demo_0102.pdf][http://www.boycottliberalism.com/liberalcelebrity.htm]ISBN 0-16-074590-X
|-
| align=center|[[Bashar al-Assad]] || align=center|[[Syria]] || align=center|'''2000–present''' || No opposition permitted in election following death of his father; widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110007449], [http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sd&ID=SP92405], [http://www.freeman.org/m_online/feb04/pasko.htm]).
|}

===Central Asia===

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Askar Akayev]] || align=center|[[Kyrgyzstan]] || align=center|1990–2005 || Appointed but became increasingly authoritarian; widely described as a dictator (see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4542783.stm], [http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/000935.php], [http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/kazakhstan/hypermail/200507/0023.shtml]).
|-
| align=center|[[Islam Karimov]] || align=center|[[Uzbekistan]] || align=center|'''1991–present''' || Described as authoritarian who is increasingly centralizing power (see [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://bell/soviet/2003/00000019/00000004/art00002&unc=], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:uuOVzdj_xBoJ:www1.dogus.edu.tr/dogustru/journal/sayi_6/M00073.PDF+%22Islam+Karimov%22+%22dictator%22]). Elections essentially uncontested and unmonitored. Opposition repressed. 
|-
| align=center|[[Saparmurat Niyazov]] || align=center|[[Turkmenistan]] || align=center|1991–2006 || Declared [[President for Life]] in 1999; [[cult of personality]]; his book ''[[Ruhnama]]'' is to be treated with reverence (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:blnbM3mP0eAJ:www.eurasianet.org/turkmenistan.project/files2/050603Turkmenreport.pdf+%22Niyazov%22+%22dictatorship%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:Ie2QfLuR_ysJ:www.ndu.edu/ctnsp/tamerlane/Tamerlane-Chapter2.pdf+%22Niyazov%22+%22dictatorship%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Muhammed Omar]] || align=center|[[Afghanistan]] || align=center|1996–2001 || Considered a Theocratic Dictator who excercized strict sharia laws; allowed the persecution of Hazaras; gave Al Qaeda refuge in Afghanistan. (see[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0881088.html][http://www.afghan-web.com/bios/today/momar.html]).
|-
| align=center|[[Ilham Aliyev]] || align=center|[[Azerbaijan]] || align=center|'''2003–present''' || Dubious election; opposition suppressed (see[http://www.underreported.com/print.php?sid=1241]).
|-
| align=center| [[Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow]] || align=center|[[Turkmenistan]] || align=center|'''2006-present''' ||Unelected, appointed as successor upon Niyazov's death. Turkemnistan still continues to be oppresive and a single-party state.
|}

===South Asia===
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center|[[Ayub Khan]] || align=center|[[Pakistan]] || align=center|1958–1969 || Gained power in a coup. Subsequent elections considered dubious (see[http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A069], [http://www.indianexpress.com/messages.php?content_id=71414]).
|-
| align=center|[[Yahya Khan]] || align=center|[[Pakistan]] || align=center|1969–1971 || Military ruler, gaining power from coup (see [http://presidentyahya.com],[http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/pakistantimeline.html], [http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/kpsgill/terrorism/04Jan10Pio.htm]).
|-
| align=center|[[Maumoon Abdul Gayoom]] || align=center|[[Maldives]] || align=center|1978–2008 || [[Autocracy|Autocrat]]; widely considered to be a dictator; no opposition or free press allowed.
|-
| align=center|[[Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq]] || align=center|[[Pakistan]] || align=center|1978–1988 || Took over following coup. Claimed government to be legitimate because it was Islamic (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:dcmhb0vRS4wJ:smartech.gatech.edu:8282/dspace/bitstream/1853/6901/1/kulkarni_nikhil_v_200505_ms.pdf+%22Muhammad+Zia%22+%22dictator%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Rahimuddin Khan]] || align=center|[[Balochistan (Pakistan)]] || align=center|1978–1984 || Appointed supreme Martial Law Governor of Balochistan by central Pakistani military government following coup. (see [http://www.answers.com/rahimuddin%20khan]).
|-
|align=center|[[Hossain Mohammad Ershad]] || align=center|[[Bangladesh]] || align=center|1982–1990 ||Gained power in a coup; declared martial law; never elected.
|-
|align=center| [[Pervez Musharraf]] || align=center| [[Pakistan]] || align=center| 1999-2008 || Deposed Nawaz Sharif in a military coup, calling it a necessity during a state of emergency. Governed directly as commander in chief until Parliament reconvened in November 2002. Assumed the title of President upon Rafiq Tarar's resignation and stood in a referendum in 2002. Opposition parties state that the rule of law in his custody has deteriorated further.
|}

===Eastern Asia ("Far East")===
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in   power !! Notes
|-
|align=center|[[Tokugawa Ieyasu]] || align=center|[[Japan]] || align=center|1600-1616|| Shogun of [[Japan]] and founder of the long reigning [[Tokugawa shogunate]]. Gained power by unifying the warring clans during [[Japan]]'s long period of civil unrest. He also created an "alternate attendance" system to pacify the [[daimyo]] warlords, as well as closing and isolating trade and the economy, in order to retain his power. His rule was also marked by persecution of european missionaries and japanese christians.
|-
|align=center|[[Yuan Shikai]] || align=center|[[Republic of China]] || align=center|1912–1916 || [[President of the Republic of China]] 1912 - 1915, self-proclaimed [[Emperor of China]], 1916. Ignored legislative consent as defined by the [[Constitution of the Republic of China|Constitution]]; dissolved the [[National Assembly of the Republic of China|National Assembly]]; assassinated [[Song Jiaoren]]; disbanded the [[Kuomintang]].
|-
| align=center|[[Roman von Ungern-Sternberg]] || align=center|[[Mongolia]] || align=center|1921 || 
Born, Baron Roman Nicolaus von Ungern-Sternberg (Роман Фёдорович Унгерн фон Штернберг), in Graf, Austria of Prussian nobility, von Ungern-Sternberg fought, against his own Prussians, in the Imperial Russian Army during World War I and fought the [[Bolsheviks]], in [[Siberia]], after 1917. A rabid [[monarchist]], von Ungern-Sternberg soon thereafter became an independent [[warlord]] with the intention of establishing an independent Russo-Sino-Mongolian monarchy in [[Urga]] under the nominal rule of [[Bogd Khaan]] (the [[Living Buddha]]). Although considered the paragon of bravery, von Ungern-Sternberg was reckless, brutal and mentally unstable.

After a savage battle against occupying [[Chinese republic]]an forces, on March 13, 1921, [[Mongolia]] was proclaimed an independent [[monarchy]], and Ungern von Sternberg became Mongolian [[dictator]]. His brief rule of Mongolia was characterised by looting, raping and a reign of terror by his army. Eventually, the [[Bolsheviks]] invaded Mongolia and after a series of battles, von Ungern-Sternberg was defeated in a August 1921, captured by his own soldiers, and handed over to the [[Red Army]] on August 21, 1921.

|-
| align=center|[[Horloogiyn Choybalsan]] || align=center|[[Mongolia]] || align=center|1936–1952 || Unelected; opponents purged; cult of personality.
|-
| align=center|[[Kim Il-sung]] || align=center|[[North Korea]] || align=center|1948–1994 || Appointed prime minister in 1948; purged rivals in the [[Workers' Party of Korea]] to consolidate power in 1956 (see [http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/korean_studies/v026/26.1lankov.pdf]); introduced "[[Juche]]" ideology demanding absolute loyalty to him and the party; created most pervavise cult of personality in recent history. Declared "Eternal President" on his death.
|-
|align=center|[[Ho Chi Minh]] ||align=center| [[North Vietnam]] ||align=center| 1945-1969 || Unelected; killed thousands of political rivals in the 1940s; killed tens of thousands more during the land reforms of the 1950s; presided over a one-party state.
|-
|align=center| [[Sukarno]] || align=center|[[Indonesia]] || align=center| 1949-1968 ||First President of Indonesia. Consolidated his powers, and got proclaimed President for LIfe. Was overthrown by the then Dictator of Indonesia, Suharto.
|-
|align=center|[[Mao Zedong]] || align=center|[[People's Republic of China]] || align=center|1949–1976 || Chairman of the PRC (1949 – 1959), Chairman of the [[Communist Party of China]] (1945 – 1976), Chairman of the [[Central Military Commission]] (1936 – 1976). Immense cult of personality; purged members of government; silenced opposition. Circumvented Communist Party hierarchy after the 1966 [[Cultural Revolution]]; imprisoned head of state [[Liu Shaoqi]]. Millions of Chinese citizens killed or murdered as a result of his policies and repression.
|-
| align=center|[[Park Chung Hee]] || align=center|[[South Korea]] || align=center|1961–1979 || Took power in 1961 coup. Although initially welcomed by much of the population, he suspended the constitution in 1971 and introduced a new constitution that greatly increased his power.
|-
| align=center|[[Ne Win]] || align=center|[[Burma]] || align=center|1962–1988 || Seized power in a coup; instituted extreme repression (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:rSAOt9c_lU0J:www.iseas.edu.sg/62003.pdf+%22Ne+Win%22+%22dictator%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:yqkmuBoqlnYJ:www.asiapacificms.com/papers/pdf/burma_india_china.pdf+%22Ne+Win%22+%22dictator%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Thanom Kittikachorn]] || align=center|[[Thailand]] || align=center|1963–1973 || Military dictator, known as one of Thailand's so-called "Three Tyrants". Oppressed student-led uprisings in October 1973 and 1976.
|-
| align=center|[[Suharto]] || align=center|[[Indonesia]] || align=center|1967–1998 || His ''[[New Order (Indonesia)|New Order]]'' imprisoned Communists and alleged Communists; repressed Chinese inhabitants; made existing parties subordinate. Also a cleptocrat (with personal and family's assets at least worth US$ 15 billion, based on [[Time]] Magazine investigation in 1998). Described as a dictator in many sources (see[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:Bbh_caM50o4J:www.aut.ac.nz/depts/commstud/journ/docs/reviewscronau.pdf+%22Suharto+dictatorship%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:128rEIvvRD4J:www.civiced.org/research/pdfs/RisingTide.pdf+%22Suharto+dictatorship%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:_233mw5azNkJ:cmbc.ucsd.edu/content/1/docs/laurance2004.pdf+%22Suharto+dictatorship%22]).
|-
| align=center|[[Lon Nol]] || align=center|[[Cambodia]] || align=center|1972–1975 || Gained power by coup; not elected.
|-
| align=center|[[Pol Pot]] || align=center|[[Democratic Kampuchea]] || align=center|1975–1979 || Unelected; led a [[Khmer Rouge]] dictatorship; responsible for deaths of at least 1 million Cambodian citizens during his rule.
|-
| align=center|[[Chun Doo Hwan]] || align=center|[[South Korea]] || align=center|1980–1988 || Gained power in a coup; declared martial law; oversaw [[Gwangju Massacre]].
|-
|align=center|[[Mahathir bin Mohamad]] ||align=center| [[Malaysia]] ||align=center| 1981-2003 || Authoritarian; suppresed opposition, media.
|-
| align=center|[[Khamtai Siphandon]] || align=center|[[Laos]] || align=center|1992–2006 || Unelected; one-party state (see[http://www.arthuredelstein.org/worlddictators]).
|-
| align=center|[[Than Shwe]] || align=center|[[Myanmar]] || align=center|1992–2011 || Unelected; persecution of minorities (especially [[Karenni]] and [[Rohingya]] groups [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51506.htm]) leading 250,000 to flee, either becoming [[IDP]]s or moving across the border to Thailand; consolidated power into himself from the [[SPDC]] - he moved to a new capital in Kyat Pyay in 2006 , &renamed it as Nay Pyi Daw ,i.e the Royal Palace City"; gained power via a military [[coup]] and announced that he would not hand over the power to [[Aung San Suu Kyi]]'s Elected Party (the [[NLD]]); no free press (see [http://www.bbc.co.uk/burmese/forum/story/2004/10/041020_khin_nyunt_ousted.shtml]).
|-
| align=center|[[Kim Jong-il]] || align=center|[[North Korea]] || align=center| 1994–2011 || Became General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defense Commission (the highest state offices) on his father's death. Continues his father's "[[Juche]]" ideology.
|-
| align=center|[[Sonthi Boonyaratglin]] || align=center|[[Thailand]] || align=center|'''2006–present''' || Army chief seized power while Prime Minister [[Thaksin Shinawatra]] was out of the country. A state of martial law was declared, parliament was dissolved and the constitution abrogated. Instituted press censorship and restrictions on protests. The first Muslim in charge of the mostly Buddhist army.
|-
| align=center|[[Kim Jong-un]] || align=center|[[North Korea]] || align=center| '''2011-present''' || Became General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defense Commission (the highest state offices) on his father's death. Continues his grandpa's "[[Juche]]" ideology.
|-
|}

==Europe==

{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center| [[Oliver Cromwell]] || align=center| [[Commonwealth of England]] || align=center| 1653-1658 || A [[Puritan]] general in the [[English Civil War]] who quickly rose through the ranks to become ''de facto'' head of the Parliamentary forces. After the Royalist defeat and the execution of [[Charles I]] the newly constituted [[Rump Parliament]] was overthrown by Cromwell who refused the Crown, choosing instead the title of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. After his death the monarchy was reinstated. [http://www.olivercromwell.org/].
|-
| align=center| [[Maximilien Robespierre]] || align=center| [[France]] || align=center| 1793–1794 || Head of the Committee of Public Safety during the French Revolution. To purge french society of "Counter Revolutionaries", he instituted the heavily repressive Reign of Terror, a period which killed thousands of french citizens, many of those killed were simply killed under mere suspicion, with little or no proof. Desposed when the National Convention declared him an outlaw.
|-
| align=center| [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] || align=center| [[France]]|| align=center| 1799–1814 || First Consul, 1799-1804. Emperor of the French 1804-1814. Declared himself "First Consul for Life" in 1802 and then Emperor in 1804.
|-
| align=center| [[Józef Chłopicki|Józef Grzegorz Chłopicki]] || align=center| [[Poland]] || align=center| 1830–1831 || Held official title of dictator for one year only.
|-
| align=center| [[Napoleon III of France|Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte]] || align=center| [[France]] || align=center| (1848–1851) 1851–1870|| President of France from 1848 to 1852. In 1851 he launched a coup against the legislature, making himself absolute ruler. From 1852 to 1870 he styled himself Emperor of the French under the name Napoléon III from 1852 to 1870. Later during his reign constitutional liberties were gradually restored. In 1870 he was captured during the abortive [[Franco-Prussian War]] and deposed in his absence by the [[Third Republic]] of France.
|-
| align=center| [[Romuald Traugutt]] || align=center| [[Poland]] || align=center| 1863–1864 || Held official title of dictator for one year. Succeeded [[Marian Langiewicz]] who had declared himself dictator previously, but only lasted less than a year in 1863. 
|-
|align=center|[[Nicholas II]] ||align=center| [[Russia]] ||align=center| 1894-1917 || Ruthless, overthrown by the "October Revolution" and the newly established communist government. The last Tsar of Russia.
|-
| align=center| [[Vladimir Lenin]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1917-1924 || Head of Bolshevik Revolution took power in 1917. Secured victory in the Russian civil war. Headed effort to transform the Russian economy to a socialist model.[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/lenin_vladimir.shtml] 
|-
| align=center|[[Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] || align=center|[[Turkey]] || align=center|1918-1938 || Led the Turkish national movement. Transformed Turkey into a secular republic through broad authoritarian reforms.
|-
| align=center| [[Benito Mussolini]] || align=center| [[Italy]] || align=center| 1922–1943, and in part of the country 1943-1945 || Prime Minister of Italy 1922-1943; head of the so-called [[Italian Social Republic]] until 1945. "He introduced strict censorship and altered the methods of election so that in 1925–1926 he was able to assume dictatorial powers and dissolve all other political parties" (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:0PFM13qC39YJ:www.ablongman.com/history_rh_bridge/assets/0321025865_ch15.pdf+%22Italian+dictator+Benito+Mussolini%22],[http://doi.contentdirections.com/mr/greenwood.jsp?doi=10.1336/0275979377]).
|-
| align=center| [[Miguel Primo de Rivera]] || align=center| [[Spain]] || align=center| 1923–1930 || Prime Minister of Spain. Gained power in a coup; suspended the constitution; established martial law; imposed strict censorship; banned all political parties. Widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9061388], [http://www.bartleby.com/65/pr/PrimRivM.html], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565186/Miguel_Primo_de_Rivera.html]). 
|-
| align=center| [[Aleksandar Tsankov]] || align=center| [[Bulgaria]] || align=center| 1923-1926 || Established Right wing nationalist, anti communist coup against [[Stamboliyski]]’s democratic elected [[Agrarians]]. Forced out of power by Tsar [[Boris III]]. [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ts/TsankovA.html]. 
|-
| align=center| [[Joseph Stalin]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1924–1953 || General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1922 - 1953; Premier of the Soviet Union 1941 - 1953. Never elected; cult of personality; heavily repressive; responsible for deaths of millions of Soviet citizens (see [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9108469], [http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761559200/Stalin_Joseph.html],[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitextlo/prof_josephstalin.html]).
|-
| align=center| [[Ahmet Bej Zogu]] || align=center| [[Albania]] || align=center| 1925–1939 || Originally elected Prime Minister of Albania 1922-1924 and 1925; President of Albania 1925-1928; crowned himself King of the Albanians (as Zog I) 1928-1939. Described as a dictator (see[http://www.albanian.com/information/history/independ.html], [http://www.diplom.org/manus/talossa/?lingo=&page=Statute&act=25RZ13], [http://www.electionworld.org/history/albania.htm]). Forced to flee with his wife, Queen Geraldine, the imminent takeover of the country by Italy under [[Benito Mussolini]].
|-
| align=center| [[José Mendes Cabeçadas]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1926 || Leader of [[Ditadura Nacional]] during the first part of June immediately after the [[28th May 1926 coup d'état]]
|-
| align=center| [[Gomes da Costa]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1926 || Succeeded Cabeçadas as head of the [[Ditadura Nacional]] for less than a month
|-
| align=center| [[António Óscar Carmona]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1926-1928 || Head of [[Ditadura Nacional]]
|-
| align=center| [[Józef Piłsudski]]|| align=center| [[Poland]] || align=center| 1926–1935 || Polish Head of State 1918-1922, but regained power in 1926 via coup. Prime Minister of Poland 1926-1928 and 1930; Commander in Chief of the Army 1926-1935. Initiated authoritarian [[Sanacja]] government; often described as a "benevolent dictator".
|-
| align=center| [[Antanas Smetona]] || align=center| [[Lithuania]] || align=center| 1926–1940 || President of Lithuania. Seized power in a 1925 military coup (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:wEZn53dBGtoJ:www.gla.ac.uk/departments/dcees/Duvold.pdf+Antanas+Smetona+%22dictatorship%22]); authoritarian rule. His description as a dictator is common (see[http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchpool.asp?target=@DOCKEYWORDS%20balthistbio&unkey=balthistbio&clientIp=216%2E63%2E197%2E211&userAgent=Mozilla%2F4%2E0+%28compatible%3B+MSIE+6%2E0%3B+Windows+NT+5%2E1%3B+SV1%3B+%2ENET+CLR+1%2E1%2E4322%29]), but not universal.
|-
| align=center| [[António de Oliveira Salazar]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1928–1968 || Prime Minister of Portugal. Established an anti-democratic, anti-parliamentarian, ultra-[[Clericalism|clericalist]], [[Corporativism|corporativist]], extremely conservative, repressive and authoritarian dictatorship, connoted with the Italian fascism, highly supported by the [[Roman Catholic Church]]. Longest right-wing dictatorship ever (four complete decades).
|-
| align=center| [[Alexander I of Yugoslavia|Alexander I]] || align=center| [[Yugoslavia]] || align=center| 1929-1934 || King of Yugoslavia from 1921. On January 6, 1929 he abolished the constitution, prorogued parliament and established the so-called "January 6 Dictatorship." A new constitution in 1931 left all significant political power in the hands of the King.
|-
| align=center| [[Engelbert Dollfuss]] || align=center| [[Austria]] || align=center| 1933–1934 || Chancellor of Austria 1932-1934. Suspended parliament indefinitely in March 1933, governing thereafter by decree. Rule sometimes compared to Mussolini or Franco (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:PUVNNLui6y4J:www3.la.psu.edu/hrsweb/majmin/Theses/Houlihan/Thesis.pdf+%22dictator%22+%22Dollfuss%22]).
|-
| align=center| [[Konstantin Päts]] || align=center| [[Estonia]] || align=center| 1933–1940 || State Elder 1933 - 1937; State Protector 1937 - 1938; President of Estonia 1938-1940. Established authoritarian rule following a coup. Allowed (and won) election in 1938.
|-
| align=center| [[Adolf Hitler]] || align=center| [[Nazi Germany]] || align=center| 1933–1945 || Chancellor of Germany 1933-1945; ''Führer'' (Leader) 1934-1945. The 1933 [[Enabling Act]] suspended most of the constitution and allowed Hitler to [[rule by decree]]. Heavily repressive; ordered imprisonment of millions of political opponents and members of ethnic minorities in concentration camps, where they were abused and killed.
|-
| align=center| [[Kimon Georgiev]] || align=center| [[Bulgaria]] || align=center| 1934 || Took power in coup. Overthrown by Tsar Boris III. 
|-
| align=center| Tsar [[Boris III]] || align=center| [[Bulgaria]] || align=center| 1934-1943 || Overthrew Kimon Geogiev. Took power him self ruled through puppet Prime Ministers Georgi Kyoseivanov. His Regime banned all opposition parties. Took Bulgaria into alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. 
|-
| align=center| [[Kurt Schuschnigg]] || align=center| [[Austria]] || align=center| 1934–1938 || Chancellor of Austria. Maintained his predecessor Dollfuss' oppressive rule.
|-
| align=center| [[Karlis Ulmanis|Kārlis Ulmanis]] || align=center| [[Latvia]] || align=center| 1934–1940 || Prime Minister of Latvia 1934-1940; President of Latvia 1936 - 1940. Gained power in a coup and dissolved parliament; generally viewed as a "benevolent dictator" (see [http://www.ltn.lv/~krz/latvia/lat_history.html], [http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/karlis_ulmanis], [http://www.bartleby.com/65/la/Latvia.html]).
|-
| align=center| [[Ioannis Metaxas]] || align=center| [[Greece]] || align=center| 1936–1941 || Prime Minister of Greece. Never elected; banned political parties; arrested opponents; criminalized unions; censored media. Widely described as a dictator (see[http://www.bartleby.com/65/pa/PapandrG.html], [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9052304], [http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/biography/metaxas.htm]). 
|-
| align=center| [[Francisco Franco]] || align=center| [[Spain]] || align=center| 1936–1975 || Prime Minister of Spain 1938-1975 and Head of State 1939 - 1975 (in the Nationalist Zone, both only to 1939). Purged opposition; often referred to as a dictator or ''caudillo'' (see[http://www.policyreview.org/jun03/diamond.html], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:B1Mmefo38twJ:www.personal.psu.edu/mlb300/spainsocprob.pdf+%22dictator+Francisco+Franco%22],[http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:NsfbKjiVUowJ:www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/POSC/faculty/montero/Spain%2520Paper%25201.pdf+%22dictator+Francisco+Franco%22], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=cache:9ZzXaMENcm8J:www.artcult.org/cst/spain_prepack_participants.pdf+%22Francisco+Franco%22+%22dictatorship%22]). Strongly supported by the [[Roman Catholic Church]] worldwide.

|-
| align=center| [[Jozef Tiso]] || align=center| [[Slovakia]] || align=center| 1939–1945 || President of [[Slovak Republic (1939-1945)|WWII Slovak Republic]]. Led a partly Roman Catholic clerical, partly pro-Nazi, one-party state. Described by some as a dictator (see [http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/3578_52.asp], [http://dominican-republic.asinah.net/en/wikipedia/j/jo/jozef_tiso.html], [http://www.ce-review.org/00/19/vaknin19.html]).
|-
| align=center| [[Ion Antonescu]] || align=center| [[Romania]] || align=center| 1940–1944 || Prime Minister of Romania. Two days after his appointment, forced King Carol II (see above) to abdicate in favor of his son, Mihai. Named himself ''Conducător'' (Leader), assumed dictatorial powers and relegated monarchy to decorative role.
|-
| align=center| [[Philippe Pétain]] || align=center| [[Vichy France]] || align=center| 1940–1944 || Prime Minister of France 1940 - 1942; Head of State 1940 - 1944. The ''Assemblée Nationale'' of Vichy France suspended the [[Third Republic]] and granted Pétain dictatorial power, although ultimately he was answerable to the German Nazi hierarchy.
|-
| align=center| [[Ante Pavelic|Ante Pavelić]] || align=center| [[Croatia]] || align=center| 1941–1945 ||''Poglavnik'' ("Leader") of Croatia. Not elected; ordered massacres of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and dissidents; hundreds of thousands slaughtered; led the genocial, devoutly Roman Catholic Ustase (see [http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm], [http://www.cuttingedge.org/articles/RC130.html], [http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/cpix.htm]). Supported by most, if not all, of the Roman Catholic church in Croatia.
|-
| align=center| [[Vidkun Quisling]] || align=center| [[Norway]]|| align=center| 1942–1945 || Minister President of Norway between 1942-1945, and founder of the fascist "National Unity" party . Traitor to his country. Executed by firing squad. Described as being the Hitler of Norway.
|-
| align=center| [[Ferenc Szálasi]] (Szálasi Ferenc) || align=center| [[Hungary]] || align=center| 1944–1945 || Leader of the [[fascist]] [[Arrow Cross]] party, Szálasi was installed as a fascist ruler by the [[Nazis]] following their overthrow of [[regent]] [[Miklós Horthy]].
|-
| align=center| [[Josip Broz Tito]] || align=center| [[Yugoslavia]] || align=center| 1944–1980 || Secretary-General of the Yugoslav Communist Party 1937 - 1963; Prime Minister of Yugoslavia 1945–1953; Premier of Yugoslavia 1953 - 1963; President of Yugoslavia 1953 - 1980; President of the ''Presidium of the League of Communists'' from 1963 until 1980. Declared himself [[President for Life]] in 1963. Viewed favorably in Yugoslavia despite authoritarian rule.
|-
| align=center| [[Enver Hoxha]] || align=center| [[Albania]] || align=center| 1944-1985|| General Secretary of the Albanian Party of Labour. Leader of single-party Communist state; extensive personality cult; Declared his nation to be the world's only officially atheist state and banned all practice of religion in 1967.
|-
| align=center| [[Mátyás Rákosi]] || align=center| [[Hungary]] || align=center| 1949-1953|| General Secretary of the [[Hungarian Workers Party]] and Prime Minister of the [[Hungarian People's Republic]]. Leader of single-party Communist state; nicknamed "Stalin's best Hungarian disciple"; Invented the phrase "[[salami tactics]]" to describe piecemeal assumption of power.
|-
| align=center| [[Nikita Khrushchev]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1953-1964 || First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1953-1964. Allowed limited liberalisation in the arts and media later on. 
|-
| align=center| [[Todor Zhivkov]] || align=center| [[Bulgaria]] || align=center| 1956-1989 || Head of pro soviet communist regimen in Bulgaria. Became party secretary in 1956 and prime minister in 1962. Forced out of power in 1989 by communist party to comply with demands of protesters.
|-
| align=center| [[Antonín Novotný]] || align=center| [[Czechoslovakia]] || align=center| 1957-1968 || Antonín Novotný, the First Secretary of the Communist Party and President of the Republic, was leader of Czechoslovakia during the Stalinisation of the country, resulting in the replacement of the Czechoslovakian democracy by a one-party communist state. His dictatorship centralized power and used force to protect his regime which lasted fifteen years.
|-
| align=center| [[Walter Ulbricht]] || align=center| [[German Democratic Republic]] || align=center| 1950/1960-1971 || General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany 1950-1971 and Head of State 1960-1973.
|-
| align=center| [[Leonid Brezhnev]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1964–1982 || First/General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1964-1982. Formed a [[cult of Personality]] later on.
|-
| align=center| [[Nicolae Ceauşescu]] || align=center| [[Romania]] || align=center| 1965–1989 || General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party, 1965-1989; President of Romania, 1974-1989. Leader of single-party Communist state; extensive personality cult developed during the 1970s. Lived lavish lifestyle while country was still using donkey carts.
|-
| align=center| [[George Papadopoulos]] || align=center| [[Greece]] || align=center| 1967–1973 || Prime Minister of Greece 1967 - 1973; Regent 1972 - 1973; President of Greece 1973. Gained power in a coup; lead military regime. Widely described as a dictator (see [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778782.html], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/379334.stm], [http://www.hellas.net]).
|-
| align=center| [[Marcelo Caetano]] || align=center| [[Portugal]] || align=center| 1968–1974 || Prime Minister of Portugal 1968 - 1974; Upon the death of [[António de Oliveira Salazar]] he continued the dictatorial regime. Some liberties were improved but the situation of the country and the [[Portuguese Colonial War|colonial wars]] lead to the [[Carnation Revolution]].
|-
| align=center| [[Gustáv Husák]] || align=center| [[Czechoslovakia]] || align=center| 1969-1987 || Came into power through soviets, Crushed the Prague spring. Headed brutal secret police stepped down from power in 1987 two years before communism fell. 
|-
| align=center| [[Erich Honecker]] || align=center| [[German Democratic Republic]] || align=center| 1971-1989 || General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany 1971-1989 and Head of State 1976-1989.
|-
| align=center| [[Phaedon Gizikis]] || align=center| [[Greece]] || align=center| 1973-1974 || President of Greece 1973-1974. Gained power in coup. Lead millitary regime installed by previous head of state.
|-
| align=center| [[Wojciech Jaruzelski]] || align=center|[[Poland]] || align=center|1961-1990 || Imposed martial law in Poland in 1981 in response to Solidarity party led strikes. Made himself head of the "Commission for National Salvation." Stated his actions were taken in order to prevent a Soviet invasion of Poland. Was President of Poland until his resignation in 1990. 
|-
| align=center| [[Yuri Andropov]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1982-1984 || General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1982-1984. Early signs of [[Perestroika]] and [[Glasnost]].
|-
| align=center| [[Konstantin Chernenko]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1984-1985 || General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1984-1985. Ailing stop-gap leader. 
|-
| align=center| [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] || align=center| [[Soviet Union]] || align=center| 1985-1991 || General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and the CPSU was banned. Oversaw democratisation in the Soviet Union, but was never directly elected as leader.
|-
| align=center| [[Slobodan Milošević]] || align=center| [[Serbia]], [[Yugoslavia]] || align=center| 1989-1997, 1997-2000 || In 1984 he became the head of the local Communist party in Belgrade and adopted a populist style, the party's leader. He successfully took over as head of the Serbian Communist party in 1987. He challenged the federal government, championed Serbian control of the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina, and advocated stridently socialist economic policy. By 1988, he had replaced party leaders in Kosovo and Vojvodina, and in 1989 he became president of Serbia. However, in September 1990, a new democratic constitution was passed allowing direct, multi-party presidential and parliamentary elections. Milosevic was elected president of Serbia for the first time in December 1990, although allegations persist of electoral fraud during the Milosevic years.
|-
| align=center| [[Alexander Lukashenko]] || align=center| [[Belarus]] || align=center| '''1994-present''' || President of Belarus. Said to have an "authoritarian ruling style". Lack of democratic standards. Human rights violations. Referred to as "Europe's last dictatorship."
|}

==Oceania==
{|class="wikitable"
|-
! Name !! Country !! Years in power !! Notes
|-
| align=center| [[Sitiveni Rabuka]] || align=center|[[Fiji]] || align=center|1987–1992 || Twice gained power through coup, allowed elections in 1992, which he won.
|-
| align=center| [[Frank Bainimarama]] || align=center|[[Fiji]] || align=center|'''2006-present''' ||Launched a coup d'etat in December 2006 after weeks of threats against the elected government.
|}

==See also==
* [[Constitutional crisis]]
* [[Cult of personality]]
* [[List of political leaders who held active military ranks in office]]
* [[List of political leaders who suspended the constitution]]
* [[List of successful coups d'état]]
* [[President for Life]]
* [[Single-party state]]

==External links==
*[http://www.thedictatorship.com The Dictatorship]
*[http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Dictators_and_Non-Democratic_Governments Dictators and Non-Democratic Governments]
*[http://www.lkwdpl.org/schools/horacemann/dictators/ Modern dictators and Human Rights Violations]
*[http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Oppressive_Regimes Oppressive Regimes]
*[http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators The World’s 10 Worst Dictators]

[[Category:Lists|dictators]][[Category:Totalitarianism]]

Talk:Atheism

2013-06-13T13:10:27Z

Ryancsh: /* Conservative Atheists */

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Atheism/Archive_Set_1|List of Archives]]
|}
__TOC__


== 13 recent grim events for Darwinism and atheism ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/13-grim-events-for-darwinism-that.html 13 recent grim events for evolutionary belief and atheism]
 
[[File:Death.png|right|100px]]
{{clear}}

== Reddit atheism ==
/r/atheism

/R/atheism has become an echo chamber for hate speech against Christians and Conservatives in the United States. Currently, it has become a place for the Secular Student Alliance to raise funds to ban God from the public square, particularly schools, and promote left wing politics. I need help constructing a page about /r/atheism. I have added it to /r/reddit, but because of its size I think it warrants its own page.

:create a [[Reddit atheism]] article if you want. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]

== Ayn Rand was an atheist and is a major inspiration to the libertarian right and the Tea Party, why is she being ignored? ==

There have been atheist right-wingers like [[Ayn Rand]] who is an inspiration to the libertarian right such as the Tea Party. She rejected the concept of God and religion for being in her view totalitarian and for not placing freedom and responsibility in the hands of individuals. You cannot place Ayn Rand's atheism in the same category as communist totalitarian atheism for instance. People have different reasons for being atheists - people who have gone to a church where a corrupt pastor has led the church may become atheist because they were totally aggravated with the experience of religion as preached by the corrupt pastor. So why are atheism and all atheists being pigeonholed as being akin to communist totalitarians? Why is Ayn Rand's libertarian version of atheism ignored?--[[User:TheQuestioner|TheQuestioner]] 12:10, 3 August 2012 (EDT)
::Is she being ignored? See [http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Other_well_known_proponents_of_atheism this section] of the article. By the way, have you ever heard of the [[fallacy of exclusion]]? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:14, 12 September 2012 (EDT)

== Biggest blow to hit world [[atheism]] ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/worlds-biggest-atheist-population-about.html World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline]

[[File:China location.png|200px|right]]
{{clear}}

== First Amendment ==

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Why are we persecuting Atheists at the same time violating the First Amendment to the Constitution? I'm an Atheistic Libertarian, by the way, but Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on.

It's funny how I can't get a single reply on one of the most popular articles on Conservapedia... Where's Andy Schlafly to criticize my grammar!? Where is he to answer my question!? One single, reasonable answer to my question to why your persecuting Atheism and violating the First Amendment.
:Apparently, you're not reading the news on a daily basis, as there is always some atheist clown making an attack on Christians, God, the Bible, and any institutions supporting it. There is no Christian persecution of atheists; it's the other way around. And we're going to highlight it in this website. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:57, 27 December 2012 (E
::Sure. Because the Christians on this site are totally not attacking atheism at all. I have been reading this site for a while, and I cannot believe how much inherent bias it has, and how it censors anyone who disagrees with them. This article in particular is absurd. What sort of "trustworthy" encyclopedia would put something like this. [[User:RaymondZ|RaymondZ]] 10:23, 22 February 2013 (EST)
:I'd say you misread the first amendment. With even a cursory glance at it, the only thing that can violate the first amendment is a law passed by Congress; no argument or discussion can violate it.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 9:29, 12 February 2013
::I exactly what way did I supposedly "misread" the First Amendment? Be specific. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::Simply, the first amendment only sets out several kinds of laws that Congress cannot make - thus, only Congress can violate the first amendment. You say "Conservapedia should be used to promote Conservatism, not to violate the rules our country was founded on," but Conservapedia is not calling for Congress to make any laws about atheism. Thus, how can Conservapedia be trying to violate the first amendment? That was meant for the original poster, btw, who does not seem to be you, Karajou.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:04, 12 February 2013
::::Answer the question, williagz. You made an accusation. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 12 February 2013 (EST)
:::::Like I said, it was an accusation at the original poster: MrSnowman. Not at you. I've explained his fault twice now.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 17:07, 12 February 2013 (EST)

Look, there's a lot of ongoing dispute between Faith and Christianity, but all your doing is favoring Christianity over Atheism. Just answer me this, Is it or is it not a violation of the First Amendment.

Just felt it's worth mentioning that many American laws favor religious people, like with marriage. The right to file jointly and tax benefits is well enough for me to consider the law favoring religious people in a significant way. I think that's what bothers the non-obnoxious atheists. There's most certainly a group who thinks others shouldn't be allowed to follow "ludicrous beliefs" or something but a religion or religious act shouldn't have benefits with the state in a nation that has religious freedom in its constitution. --[[User:MrSnowman|MrSnowman]] 11:22, 15 January 2013 (EST)
::Once the religion of evolutionism is pulled out of the public school, the religion of atheism will collapse like a pancake. And it is inevitable that this will occur.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/darwinists-start-thinking-unthinkable.html] Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[http://creation.com/15-questions]
:But atheists can and do get married and reap those same benefits. I don't see your point.[[User:williagz|williagz]] 19:57, 27 December 2012

::Biblical creation belief is rapidly on the rise in the world and beginning to have a discernible effect on Western nations and it is inevitable that Darwinism will be defeated and atheism will become an even smaller squeak in American society.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] Even in secular France, evangelicalism is the fastest growing religion plus young earth creationism is growing in America according to the latest Gallup survey.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/down-with-evolutionary-belief-down-with.html]

::By the way, why did the Founding Fathers of America install a paid chaplain shortly after the United States was founded? "When the Senate first convened in New York City on April 6, 1789, one of its first orders of business was to appoint a committee to recommend a candidate for chaplain. On April 25, the Senate elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provoost, Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first chaplain".[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Chaplain.htm] [[User:RobTurkel|RobTurkel]] 16:26, 15 January 2013 (EST)

::No discussion on this site amounts to new laws being made. Thus, no discussion on this site is a violation of the first amendment. [[User:williagz|williagz]] 16:10, 12 February 2013

==A problem with the definition of atheism stated==

if atheism is defined as the "Denial of the existence of God", it begs the question, which god? This definition seems to presume the existence of a monotheistic god, which not all theists believe in. For example, Hindus and to an extent, Muslims, believe in a different god than Christianity. So if "God" means the monotheistic Judeo-Christian god, then doesn't this definition mean that Hindus are atheists? This would also mean that pagans, Hindus, and those who believe in several gods are all atheists. I think this is a huge problem with the definition you've stated, so I think that should be revised. Just my two cents on the matter, I mean, it doesn't really make sense to call a Hindu or a pagan an atheist, does it? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 17:52, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::The article demonstrates that the leading Western World philosophers have been influenced by Christianity and that is why the leading encyclopedias of philosophy use our definition. So the current definition is staying. Plus, both Christianity/Islam are monotheistic and both are Abrahamic religions although they believe something different about the history of God/Isaac. If you take the populations of Christainity/Islam that far outweighs the percentage of atheists or Hindus in the world. One thing for certain, we are not going to use a internet atheist dumbed down definition of atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:32, 13 March 2013 (EDT)
::::So this is like a majority rules thing? I think that definition is far too limited in scope. I mean, does any of what is said in this article even apply to Hindus or pagans or Wiccans? Because based on the definition, this article is indeed meant to address them as well, and even addresses deists--people who don't believe in a specific god or perhaps don't even subscribe to the idea that there's just the on god. Also, this is just a side note, but why is there so much wanton contempt for atheism on this site? [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 08:30, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::I think it's fear. Fear of the very plausible possibility that we are all alone in the universe and that there is no afterlife. It takes courage to consider that possibility objectively, at face value. Hence the obsessive attention atheism receives on this website. By endlessly attacking atheism and atheists, many high profile users don't define themselves by what they are (Christians), but by what they are not. [[User:Onestone|Onestone]] 13:09, 14 March 2013 (EDT)
:::::::Onestone, fear? What is there to fear? What proof and evidence do atheists have that atheism is true? Christianity has all the evidence. See: [[Christian apologetics]]. In addition, it is atheists who are the fearful ones. See: [[Atheism and cowardice]]. Lastly, you offered no proof and evidence that this website endlessly attacks atheism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:21, 28 March 2013 (EDT)
::::::::Shockofgod? Is that you? If you want "proof and evidence that proves that my assertion is accurate and correct" (did I get the question right?), how about the existence of an article called "atheism and cowardice"? "atheism and beastiality"?[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:19, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

That question requires you prove God doesn't exist in an attempt to shift the burden of proof to the atheist. Considering how impervious this God is to any form of scientific detection and requires some of vague "spiritual" detection, by the very nature of God or the nature of God's construction as a concept renders that impossible. No one can disprove God in that manner. Say for example i say "i know and believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord and master over my endocrine system beacause my heart tells me so" what proof and evidence would you have to disprove that? The website does attack atheism in a constant manner as you have no obviously been reading the site or your own work i suspect [[user:Conservative]]. This site links it to a host of different attacks:

http://conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_suicide http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_uncharitableness_and_depression http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity (there are other studies that suggest religious people are more prone to obesity, but of course you cherry pick your studies) http://conservapedia.com/Sports_performance:_Religious_faith_vs._atheism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_sadism http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_rape http://conservapedia.com/Atheism,_pederasty_and_NAMBLA http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_slavery http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_satanic_deception http://conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_moral_depravity http://conservapedia.com/Atheist_leaders_and_immoral_relationships t this is pretty much almost every article within Conservapedia about atheism attempts to show atheism in a negative light.

Regardless of if these are "true" as i suspect you will point out, the purpose of these articles is to paint atheists in a negative light in order to promote theism (or perhaps dare i say specifically Christianity). So this can be interpreted as an "attack" on atheism in order to point people into the direction of Christianity. --DavidS 13:33, 30 March 2013 (EDT)

== North Korea and Laos ==

Hello can you please refer to the articles: [[Religion and Atheism in North Korea]] and [[Religion and Atheism in Laos]] --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 15:24, 28 March 2013 (EDT)

== Suggested fixes ==

The page has been locked, so I can't edit, but a couple of suggestions:

1) I think the author means that atheism is ''inversely'' proportional to eduction, not ''indirectly''.

2) Probably worth clarifying that 'according to the University of Cambridge' bit. The University of Cambridge is a big place, and hasn't ever really expressed any opinions of its own, except regarding the wearing of gowns after sunset, so this really should be clarified as the 'Investigating Atheism' project at the Cambridge University Faculty of Divinity.

--[[User:DHouser|DHouser]] 12:59, 14 April 2013 (EDT)

== Atheism and education ==

Regardless of our political persuasion, it's important to show both sides of the story. Despite the 4 citations referencing how atheism is inversely proportional to education, they all reference the smaller study by Nick Spengel. There is more research showing the inverse, actually, and it's important to mention that in the article regardless of your opinion of atheism, if you want to be taken seriously. Check out these contradictory links.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/why-do-atheism-rates-correlate-with-education-levels/
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/high-iq-turns-academics-into-atheists/402381.article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/11/aetheists-research-scientists
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2011/02/22/does-higher-education-cause-at/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/05/atheist-religion-education-demographics-class
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/16/pew-survey-a-huge-god-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/08/atheism-religion-class-science
http://spq.sagepub.com/content/73/1/33

-antibias

== Autism ==

Can somebody please make this page editable or add, under the mental health section, something about autistic kids all being atheists? See [[Autism#Autism_and_Atheism|autism and atheism]] [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:01, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:No, because your statement "autistic kids all being atheists" is false, not supported by the sources, and (to be frank, as a Catholic likely on the autism spectrum) very demeaning. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 07:52, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

:Given the strong hatred for atheists that exists on this site, such an entry would be offensive to autistic children. Let's not use people with disabilities for any such agenda, ok?
[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:11, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

== Does an atheist conservative have any place here? ==

I'm an atheist, and a conservative. After being on this site for a while, I can't help but notice that there is a very strong anti-atheist bias, even though there are plenty of atheist conservatives, and atheism is in no way at odds with the conservative political view. I believe in the conservative cause and stand by America through and through. I support lower taxes, I support smaller government, I support states' rights, I support economic stimulus remaining in the private sector. I'm just as appalled as the next person by Obama's large government and out of control spending, but this site seems to think that atheists and evolution are more pressing issues.

I am a conservative. I had hoped to share some of my information, as my conservatism, is based on careful, reasoned analysis of the facts, lots of research, and strong skepticism for everything, including liberal ideas. But I'm sensing some very strong hostility towards atheists such as my self, and I wonder what place an atheist conservative has here. So I'm just wondering, is an atheist conservative welcome here?

Don't all we conservatives, atheist, Christian, and deist alike share a common enemy: the dark cloud of large goverronment and economic collapse?

[[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 14:09, 30 April 2013 (EDT)

:An "anti-atheist bias" on this site, Katie? Do you ever read the news on a daily basis, in which there is an anti-Christian, anti-God, and anti-Bible bias by atheists everywhere in the country? This website is going to broadcast every bit of that hated and those who perpetrate it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::I realize that there is, to some extent, a degree of intolerance to Christianity by atheists. But the site seems to go far beyond just reporting these events. In fact, I haven't stumbled across a single piece of text here that pointed out any of these instances. Most of it just seems to be demonizing atheists in every way possible. There are plenty of conservative atheists who have no intention to attack Christianity. I myself am entirely apathetic to Christianity and don't really care about it at all, I mostly am concerned about the well being of my country and her economy, and for the well-being of my fellow American. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 23:14, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course! Conservapedia welcomes conservatives of all stripes (and also non-conservatives as well). [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:35, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
::::KatieKomori, when your only recourse is to cry bias, it is a good sign that the facts are not on your side. See: [http://www.barking-moonbat.com/God_in_the_Dock.html Bulverism] by [[C.S. Lewis]] and [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html Evidence for Christianity]. Second, the term "conservative atheist" is an oxymoron. There is nothing traditional/conservative about atheism. And it is not surprising that most atheists are liberal/leftists given that the "most notable spread of atheism was achieved through the success of the 1917 Russian Revolution, which brought the Marxist-Leninists to power."[http://www.investigatingatheism.info/marxism.html] Also, atheists commonly do not hold to social conservatism. The Barna Group found that atheists and agnostics in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/58-practical-outcomes-replace-biblical-principles-as-the-moral-standard] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:58, 30 April 2013 (EDT)
:::::"Crying bias" is not my "recourse" because my point in posting this was not to justify my atheism. I don't really care to convince you that my atheism is justified, and I don't really care if you believe in a god or not. I think we can both agree to disagree on it. I am simply asking if atheist conservatives are welcomed to contribute to the site.
:::::Atheist conservatives do exist, in great numbers. I haven't seen a single piece of proof demonstrating that atheists tend to be liberals. With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know. I only care about the things that matter, like the ever increasing size of government, our current economic crisis, out of control taxes, the uninformed liberal sheep who support all of it, and the MSM that turns a blind eye to it all. These are real issues that affect our nation in real ways, and I think that they're things that everyone should be informed about, regardless of lifestyle, sexual orientation, or religion. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 09:46, 1 May 2013 (EDT)

How is the term "conservative atheist" an oxymoron? Conservative and Christian are not synonyms. Chloe Smith, the MP for Norwich North is one example of an Athiest Conservative. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099971/Defiant-Speaker-vows-prayer-ban-Commons.html
--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:59, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:Anyone is free to define words however they like. It seems to me that it is a contradiction in terms for one to be a Conservative and yet not a Christian. Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal. There are no ifs or butts about this, except that some attempt to dilute the meaning of conservative for political gain. Such attempts are given short shrift here. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 22:21, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
::Individual liberty, fiscal responsibility, freedom from heavy tax burden, right to bear arms, and freedom of religion don't seem to be exclusive to Christianity, why do you have to be a Christian to support any of that? You don't need to be a Christian to recognize that these principles are the cornerstone of the human condition, and promote the greatest success possible for a country. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 10:26, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::Anyone who is not a Christian is by definition a liberal?
::It only takes one example to prove something wrong and here is my example to you: Osama bin-Laden. Now how was he a liberal? I would like to point out that I am not an athiest, I am a fully paid up member of the CofE, although I guess that makes me a liberal christain, which according to the [[oxymoron]] page is an oxymoron itself.--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 22:46, 2 May 2013 (EDT)
:::Of course Osama was a liberal. I don't see what the issue is. If you want to dilute the definitions of 'conservative' to include Osama Bin Laden then perhaps this site is not for you! --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 01:01, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Yeah... no. Osama bin Laden was a mixed bag of ideologies, and any attempt to pile him neatly into one camp or another will fail. Anyway, it would appear that the short answer to Katie's question would be no. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 01:27, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::We're all a mixed bag if we're going to be perfectly honest... I'd be willing to bet literally anything I own, assuming participant was somehow guaranteed to answer honestly, that in a double blind study no two editors on this site would give exactly the same answers to a given test of political/moral/social views and give the same "weight" to each topic's relative importance. No matter how conservative one claims to be, (or conversely, how liberal they are accused of being) everyone views the world slightly differently. There should be a place here for everyone who considers themselves conservative. Who are we to judge what is in another's heart? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 01:39, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
KatieKomori, you wrote: "With regards to all the things you posted, pornography, sex before marriage, homosexuality, etc, I don't really care about any of that, nor does any other conservative I know." That is because your so-called conservative friends are faux conservatives! See: [[Social conservatism]]. Second, you still haven't shown me that atheism is more traditional than theism. Atheists have always been a minority in the world - especially before the 1700s (see: [[Paul-Henri Thiry]]). And now atheists are shrinking as a percentage of the world's population. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. The [[Atheism is a religion|religion of atheism]] is not traditional/conservative.

KatieKomori, you are a [[libertarian]] and not a [[conservative]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:48, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
::Technically, atheism is more traditional because belief in gods has only existed for as long as the human species, probably even less. But that doesn't matter, even if atheism isn't traditional, my religious/spiritual views don't play a part in my political views. I am a libertarian, but I don't think that excludes me from being a conservative as well. I don't care about social conservatism because to be honest, it seems pretty worthless and pointless to me. What's actually important is the economic future of America, which is what's actually under attack right now. Maybe the liberals are succeeding because we're focusing on silly things like pornography and homosexuality...when there's REAL problems that need to be solved... [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 10:26, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::The family is a very fundamental until of society. It has big effects on other sectors of society including the economic sector. Atheists are often not very family oriented and the policies they advocate are detrimental to society: http://creation.com/atheism#marriage-and-divorce Family cohesiveness has a big effect on poverty levels: http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/02/us/child-poverty-twice-as-likely-after-family-split-study-says.html

:::::Your evolutionary and long age views are wrong and that is why you cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions for evolutionists: http://creation.com/15-questions or address these 101 evidences for a young earth: [http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth age of the earth] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::: Conserative, are you a member of a family unit ? Do you have a 'long haired creationist wife' and some creationist children ? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 23:13, 3 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::::Look Conservative, if you want an atheism/theism debate and you want me to answer those questions so badly, please take it to my talk page. Or email me, or start a new discussion, or whatever. I'd be happy to provide responses to those "questions". This has gotten way off topic from my original question but I'll take the fact that I haven't been banned as an answer. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 15:48, 4 May 2013 (EDT)
Dvergne, one of the early warning signs of [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] is a preoccupation with an adminstrator(s) and a preoccupation with my atheism/evolution/homosexuality articles. In addition, an obsession with my various satires/comedies on atheism/evolution often develops. I would break your preoccupation now before it develops into [[Essay: Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder seems to be a disorder invented by youself Big C. Do you have any clinical evidence for this disorder? I read it as a satirical piece, which is well done but hardly something to link to as proof. And I think it is rather cruel and nasty of you to diagnose someone with a mental disorder, even if it is pseudo. Katy has shown no sign of a disorder, she has only dis-agreed with you. --[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 17:17, 4 May 2013 (EDT)

== Definition of Atheism ==
The article reads, "Atheism is the denial of existence of God." However, this is inadequate for two reasons. First, even if we maintain the word 'denial', atheism is the denial of existence of ''all'' gods, not just the Judeo-Christian one, ''and'' all supernatural events. Second, a person can be an atheist if they merely lack belief in any god; this is called weak atheism and is very similar to agnosticism, but does not actively deny the existence of any deities or the supernatural. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) Thus, I suggest a revision of the definition to: "Atheism is the denial of or lack of belief in the existence of any god or the supernatural." If I receive no response in 3 days, I shall change it. [[User:GVolkov|GVolkov]] 10:26, 11 May 2013 (EDT)
:That's the exact same thing I said above. By this definition, Hindus, Wiccans, and just plain non-Christian theists are atheists. But the people here are pretty insistent that atheism is the assertion that no gods exist, so you won't get very far on that discussion unfortunately. The reference you gave runs counter to their favorite definition, so chances are they'll reject it. But yes, you are correct that the definition stated on the page is flawed. [[User:KatieKomori|KatieKomori]] 11:46, 11 May 2013 (EDT)

== Conservative Atheists ==

What I want to know is why this article willfully ignores conservative atheists like myself who are the silent majority of atheists. It seems to me that you are attempting to make every Atheist seem like Richard Dawkins which is not true. I despise that man. Yes what you say may be true for LIBERAL atheists but not of conservative atheists. While I am fervently on the right, to the point where my ideology could make half the Republican congress seem like communists, articles like this make me sick of some of my "political comrades." If you want to attack liberal atheists I support you all the way but don't generalize. In my country, most of the socialists are Christian, that doesn't mean that I instantly call all Christians socialists. I think this website better decide who it wants to attack: Liberals or fellow conservatives. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 19 May 2013 21:43 GMT
::Ryansch, I am willing to collaborate with you on a [[Atheism and politics]] article which could be partly or wholly inserted in the main atheism article. It has to be factual though and cannot make unsupported assertions such as atheist conservatives are the silent majority. Every claim must have a citation too. I cannot give you a timetable on when it will be inserted though but I did pledge to the owner of Conservapedia that I would create or help create such an article and insert some of its content into the main article. Please also create a [[Secular left]], [[Atheism and libertarianism]], etc. etc. articles too if you are so inclined. Also, is the second paragraph of the [[atheism]] article true? If not, why not? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:15, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I would be glad to help create an [[Atheism and politics]] as well as a [[Secular left]] article. Unless I have misunderstood the question, I believe you are referring to the paragraph dealing with the link between the 1917 Bolshevik revolution and Atheism. It is true that The Bolsheviks were militant atheists as well as the radicals in the french revolution. However, I would like to point to their reasons. Communism was only Atheist because it saw religion as a threat. Any totalitarian state wants to destroy any and all opposition. It should be noted that the Orthodox Church used to be fervent supports of the Tsar and were one of the few people who supported him in the initial October revolution. In addition, the Orthodox church contained vast wealth, something that the communists despised and wanted rid of. To be honest Marxist‒Leninist atheism is a whole different branch of Atheism in itself, a bit like New Atheism, Atheism 2.0 and, to an extent, American Atheism (which seems to run in a tangent to that in Western Europe). When making links like these it would be wise to be cautious because making links between these groups and Atheism would be like making links between the Westboro Baptist church and mainstream Christianity. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 8 June 2013 15:08 GMT
If you could find survey data on what percentage of atheists are left of center politically in terms of fiscal policy, it would be helpful. Alternatively, a quote from a credible source about this matter would suffice. It seems that both libertarian atheists and secular leftists both oppose social conservatism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:32, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
:I believe this blog does contain some useful survey data on the demographics of atheism (though it is dated 1992 so the results could be very different from now and also is in the united states where I do think Atheism tend to be more liberal) :http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/10/atheist-conservatives-and-libertarians-are-not-rare/#.UbNPw5zpRxI [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 8 June 2013 16:40 GMT
::Um, I can't ever recall contributing to this page. Why are you reverting a non-existent me? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:28, 13 June 2013 (EDT)
:::In all fairness, your edit last time did seem quite patronizing "go to bed cons, its way past your bedtime" [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 13 June 2013 14:10 GMT

User talk:Ryancsh

2013-06-12T18:07:30Z

Ryancsh: /* Congratulations */

Horace

2013-06-12T13:17:29Z

Ryancsh: Undo revision 1055999 by FinlandiA (talk) Vandalism

'''Quintus Horatius Flaccus''' (65 – 8 BC) is known to the English speaking world as Horace. He was born near Venusia in southern Italy and was the son of a [[manumitted slave]]. When young he was taken to Rome and was educated by the best masters. At the age of about 18 he traveled to Athens to study Greek and Philosophy. In 44 BC he joined [[Brutus]] who was raising an army in Athens. He fought as a staff officer in the [[Battle of Philippi|battle of Philippi]] and was forced to flee after the Republican defeat that resulted. When an amnesty was declared he returned to Rome but found that his property had been confiscated. He was, nonetheless, able to purchase an appointment as a Treasury official.

His first writings were chiefly satires and lampoons. It was his early lyrical works, however, that brought him to the attention of [[Virgil]] who introduced him to a patron, Maecenas. It was this patronage that allowed Horace to cease his employment in the civil service and concentrate on his writing.

Horace was the unrivaled lyric poet of his time and has enjoyed an extraordinary popularity in literature. He produced a first book of ''Satires'' in 35 BC and a second volume in 30 BC. At about the same time he produced a collection of lyrics, the ''Epodes''. The three books of ''Odes'' were produced in 19 BC and are considered to be his greatest works. He also produced his ''Epistles'', ''Carmen Seculare'' and a fourth book of ''Odes''.

He coined phrases ''seize the day'', ''the golden mean'', and ''Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'' (it is sweet and appropriate to die for your country).

Horace was privy to the Circle of [[Mycenae]], an elite group of poets under the direct sponsorship of Augustus, that largely produced panegyric works.
<center>
''Pede poena claudo.''

Retribution comes slowly, but surely.
</center>

== See also ==

*[[Juvenal]]

[[Category:Poets]]

Talk:Secular left

2013-06-09T21:36:16Z

Ryancsh: /* Focus on Atheism */

==Focus on Atheism==
Conservative, Atheism and secularism are not the same thing. I would agree that in the secular left there are a good proportion of atheists however I would direct you towards the [[Atheist vs Secular]] page in which it does note that there is a difference. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:33 8 June 2013
:I don't see your point in relation to the accuracy of the material I added.

:Second, I have never seen a case where secularism is neutral. Pro-atheism/materialism philosophy/religious tenets like evolution, etc. are invariable are promoted via so called secularists in the public schools. [[Atheism is a religion]] and so is evolution.[http://creation.com/15-questions] Evolution is also a religious tenet of the religion of atheism. Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”[http://creation.com/15-questions] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:48, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

:Furthermore, secularists tend to suppress the free speech of Christians in the public square (Valedictorians being asked not to mention Jesus in their speeches, school prayer, etc. ).

Really? because I'm an Atheist yet I do not promote the so called "religious tenet" of evolution. I'm a true Atheist in the original definition of the word: that I see the claim that God exists and I refuse to believe that until I am given credible proof. I do not say that there is no god (that would be an Anti-theist) but simple that I do not believe in one until one is proved. That is the same with evolution (as in the origin of species not the idea that animals change over time, the latter has been proved) because I refuse to accept evolution the origin of speicies until it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 16:53 8 June 2013
::Ryancsh, did [[macroevolution]] occur? If so, are you willing to debate [[VivaYehshua]] in a debate offer which has repeatedly been given to evolutionists. Frankly, if you claim to believe in macroevolution, I doubt the sincerity of your belief in this religion.

::In January of 2012, the Journal of Research in Science Teaching published a study indicating that evolutionary belief is significantly based on gut feelings. A January 20, 2012 article entitled Belief in Evolution Boils Down to a Gut Feeling published by the website Live Science wrote of the research: "They found that intuition had a significant impact on what the students accepted, no matter how much they knew and regardless of their religious beliefs." See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:59, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I refuse to debate for a side that I do not even stand for. If you want a debate on evolution then contact someone who promotes that. I do not get involved in evolution because I do not side to either side until one starts to gain irrefutable proof. I will debate over the idea that Atheism is a religion, considering the fact that Atheism is simply the rejection of the proposition that there is a god. Anti-Theists are a religion, they are the people that say that there is no God. Atheism is simply this: You say there is a God, I say if you don't prove it I won't believe it.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 17:07 8 June 2013
Ryancsh, I am not going to wrangle with someone who is insincere. You purposefully engaged in equivocation.

"...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy."[http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-3-argument-evolution-is-true-science-not-just-a-theory] See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:12, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

:I'm sorry, but what part of my argument is insincere? I am telling you simply That Atheism and Evolution are not synonymous. What about Raelians? There are a type of atheism, in the sense that they don't believe in god) but completely reject the idea of evolution. I think that you need to stop attempting to generalize all Atheists into a single category. We are just as different as any other grouping on earth.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 17:19 8 June 2013
::I don't believe you are sorry. Not going to wrangle with someone who I believe is an insincere Darwinist poser.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/evolutionist-posers-naive-evolutionists.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:31, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
:::I never said that I was a Darwinist. Like I said, stop with the generalization. That is what I really do not understand about your actions. As a conservative, your main focus should be to attack the left. Communism, Socialism and Liberalism should be the enemy, not me. Considering that you and I more than likely have similar views on social and economic policy I do not understand why you would be so quick to go for my throat. This article proves exactly what I am talking about. You turned something that provided criticism of the left into a full attack upon Atheism. If you want to attack leftist Atheists you will have my full support and I will even join you but deciding to ignore the left to attack someone who is just as conservative as you seems highly illogical to me.[[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 17:41 8 June 2013
::::Ryancsh, did [[macroevolution]] occur or most likely occur? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:53, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::Ryancsh, for the record, I think that both the secular left and secular right will collapse and that Professor Eric Kaufmann's projections are correct. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. Second, the economic liberalism in the Western World is not sustainable and it will either collapse or be pared down. Given the arrogance and stubbornness of many in the post 1960s West which had prosperity for many years, economic collapse is the most likely scenario in my opinion. Will the West and/or the United States bounce back quickly economically? Time will tell. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:42, 8 June 2013 (EDT)

I sincerely tried to implement some degree of collaboration with atheists on the talk pages (as per my/our [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Small_amendment_to_my.2Four_aforementioned_policy new policy]), but the Christianity/atheism culture war appears to still largely be a zero sum game. It is hard to collaborate with those who lack candor and have very different wishes for the future direction of Western society/world. Atheism will largely lose this culture war though attrition and other factors.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-academic-journal-sociology-of.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:39, 8 June 2013 (EDT)
::Ryancsh, a few other things. The University of Cambridge material was historically correct in its assertions. Second, if you were for public schools being sold off and vouchers given instead would could agree on this. And then much of the Christianity vs. atheism culture war would end. And if this happened, atheism would lose a lot of its ideological supply line - state sponsored Darwinist indoctrination. Lastly, there is a correlation between more socialism and/or communism and more atheism existing in a country.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/does-atheism-thrive-on-economic.html]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:05, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

1. I am in no position to comment about Evolution. I am not a Darwinist, an Evolutionist or a biologist. Stop attempting to put me into an argument in which I have no place.

2. The closest thing that came to collaboration on your behalf was when you said that you would be willing to collaborate on an Atheism and Politics with me. I sincerely doubt that it is the fault of other Atheists because you have proven to me off this page that you have no interest in collaborating with Atheists no matter how right wing they may be. I still point out that you made an article that criticized the Left into a full assault on Atheism.

3. This talk of a culture war is not a war. It's an attack of Christians who, for some reason or another, seem to not be able to rest until every last Atheist is gone. Atheism, by its very nature, does not work like that. The status-quo argument of "all we want is to be left alone" is actually very applicable here. I might add that it is the will of the Government whether or not schools teach evolution. I also know for a Fact that the Catholic church follows a doctrine of Theist evolution, (as I was brought up in a Catholic/Methodist household) so the idea that without public schools there would be no evolution is farcical.

4. How many times do I have to tell you...Evolution and Atheism are not synonymous. Atheism is the rejection (or denial as you call it) of the belief in a god. That has nothing to do with Evolution. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 17:12 9 June 2013
::Ryancsh, you say you are an atheist and not an evolutionist. If life and the various kinds of animals/plants did not arise by evolution, how did it happen? What is your third alternative outside of creationism? Little green men? If so, where did the little green men come from? It's either naturalism or supernaturalism and you haven't given me a naturalistic explanation with sound evidence supporting it. Bible Christianity and biblical creationism have a wealth of evidence supporting them as can be seen [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/evidence-for-christianity-websites-and.html HERE].

::Second, if you are not for vouchers which private schooling can access (including private religious schools and/or homeschooling) and/or the elimination of public schools, then I have serious doubts about you being right wing which you claim to be. Without this happening, state sponsored indoctrination into atheistic/deistic postulations of how life and animals/plants arose will continue. Liberal elitist judges will continue to eliminate/distort the process of choice of what is being taught.

::Third, in a free society with the exchange of ideas and an open public square, atheists will realistically never be hermetically sealed from receiving religious messages outside the religion of atheism. This is the price of freedom. The idea that atheists will "be left alone" is a fantasy and it wasn't even achieved in the Soviet Union which had state sponsored forced atheism.[http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z3211C.pdf] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:49, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

:::Atheism does not claim to have an answer for how life originated. All Atheism is is the rejection of your proposition that there is a god. In terms of where life came from: I'm apathetic. Doesn't really affect me one way or another. I'm not here to debate that.

:::Public Schools must be maintained for those who cannot afford private tuition or their parents cannot home-school them. When it comes to the school system in Britain, supporting grammar schools is considered right wing and I am of the category. For the record, I am in favor of Creation being taught alongside evolution should the parents in the school district support that. Elimination of Public schools in Britain is near-impossible so the farthest the ring wing can be is that parents have move say in their local schools in what gets taught and what does not. You are forgetting that there are two very different school systems between Britain and the USA.

:::Oh I fully support the idea of free ideas in a public square...but there's a difference between a logical debate and a full on assault. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh] 18:02 9 June 2013
::::A government voucher would eliminate the objection that public schools cannot be eliminated due to poor people. In Belgium, families receive government vouchers which they can use at any school including private religious schools.

::::There is no reason why government schools cannot be privatized and replaced with private schools and homeschooling. Plus, Bible believing Christians and Orthodox Jews have among the highest rates of literacy in the world. In the New England Colonies, their societies were based on the Bible and they had respectable literacy rates. It is not the fault of Christians that atheists have never created a book that is more widely read than the Bible!

::::There will be more and more privatizing of education in the West and the agnostic Bill Gates says a crisis is coming as far as American funding of public schools.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-agnostic-bill-gates-presents-data.html] Broke European economies will no doubt face the same future situation. Private schooling is more economical/effective than public schooling.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/08/anti-evolution-religious-private.html][http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-collapse-of-darwinism-promoting.html] These events will not be good for the promulgation of atheism/agnosticism/Darwinism.

::::By the way, an assault on atheism and evolutionism is coming and atheists have no plan to reverse their global decline. [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-web-traffic-of-creationcom-is-being.html][http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionists-atheists-and-agnostics.html] A backlash against militant atheism and state sponsored Darwinism is coming at the worst possible time for militant atheists/Darwinists and they are not ready.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-third-wave-of-attack-coming-towards.html]

::::Atheism is doomed and global atheism is shrinking! [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/globally-worldviews-of-atheism-and-non.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:55, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

:::::Trying to deconstruct one of the most oldest establishments in Britain would cause more problems than it would solve. Conservatism can be subjective you know. For example, British Conservatives highly value Democracy while the old Prussian Conservatives hated it. A public school system should be kept in Britain but grammar schools should be re-instated. As far as America is concerned, I do support home-schooling and private school. I do not believe in a one-size fits all approach to countries as different circumstances require different approaches. Same reason why I support the A&E department of the NHS but I oppose Obamacare in The USA. Conservatism (like main other ideologies) changes from country to country based on the circumstances it finds itself in. But, may I say, that both fiscally and socially I would be on the right wing of the US Conservative branch. so, Like I said, can we please stop attacking me over Atheism and turn our attention towards our ideological enemies: Liberals, Socialists and Communists? [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 22:21 9 June 2013
By the way, anyone can look out the window and see the world is designed. Even young people in Japan can see the world is designed.[http://creation.com/children-see-the-world-as-designed] But given your aforementioned intellectual apathy/laziness in terms of the ultimate causes of things, I have decided to end our discussion. There is no reason to spend time with someone who wishes to stay willfully ignorant. Oh, and for someone who is apathetic about the ultimate causes of things, your repeated posts on atheists/Christian matters is awful peculiar. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:26, 9 June 2013 (EDT)

It's not Laziness, I am simply brave enough to say "I don't know" when someone asks me on the origin of life. Why should I take a side if neither side has convinced me that it is correct. You're a creationist? wonderful. Someone else is an evolutionist? Equally as wonderful. As an Atheist and a Conservative I believe in the freedom of choice. The fact that you no long want to allow people to be atheists and repeated attempt to attack that choice shows that you do not have this traditionally conservative value. I would like to remind you that Atheism is simply the rejection of your promotion of a god. Anti-Theists promote an alternative. Atheists do not. We don't need an alternative because our arguement is simple: You have not convinced us that your side is right. [[User:Ryancsh|Ryancsh]] 22:21 9 June 2013 GMT

Talk:Secular left

2013-06-09T21:23:13Z

Ryancsh: /* Focus on Atheism */

Talk:Secular left

2013-06-09T21:22:14Z

Ryancsh: /* Focus on Atheism */

Liberal

2013-06-09T19:55:21Z

Ryancsh: Okay I might need an admin to back me up here, But I'm pretty sure communism is NOT a Liberal practice, policiy or ideology.

[[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumbnail|right|180px|President [[Barack Obama]] advocates the use of unsuccessful [[Keynesian economics|Keynesian economic concepts]]. He is considered by many to be the worst president ever.]]

A '''liberal''' is someone who favors increased [[government]] spending, power, and control, as in [[ObamaCare]], as well as [[censorship]] of [[Christianity]]. Increasingly, liberals side with the [[homosexual agenda]], including supporting [[same-sex marriage|homosexual "marriage"]]. Many liberals favor a [[welfare state]] where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-[[Christian]], or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. They prefer [[atheism]] over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite of [[conservative]] principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a decreasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.<ref>http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent--shifted-publics-ideology-balance</ref>

'''A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices''':

* Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the [[Eurozone]] due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
* Government's ability to solve economic problems<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists' hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy <ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]
* Cessation of teacher-led [[prayer]] in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events.
* [[Gun control]]
* Anti-Americanism
* Affirmative action<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref>
* Government-funded medical care, such as [[Obamacare]]
* [[evolution and liberalism|Belief in evolution]]
* Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on.
* Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled [[public education]]
* Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the [[military]]
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]] and homosexual adoption
* [[Tax and spend]] economics
* Economic sector regulations<ref>http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs</ref>
* Spreading of [[political correctness]]
* Destroying [[liberty]]
* Ending Western morality
* Non-syndicalist [[labor union|labor unions]]
* Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching [[abstinence]] from premarital sex<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref>
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]
* Abolition of the [[death penalty]]
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref> and environmental organizations, for example [[Greenpeace]]</ref>
* [[Globalism]]
* Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
* Opposition to full private property rights.<ref> For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref>
* Reinstatement of the [[Fairness Doctrine]]
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]
* Opposition of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]], a major part of the [[War on Terrorism]]
* Opposition to the [[War on Terrorism]] and the [[War in Iraq]]
* Regulation of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy
* Opposition to the Constitution. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of local government and silence the conservatives who hold them back, violating the 10th and 1st Amendments respectively.
* [[Liberal Denial|Denial]] of traditional [[gender roles]]
* Support of financially irresponsible policies
* Advocating policies which are proven to be incorrect
* Encouragement of [[Global Warming|global warming alarmism]]
* Persecution of [[Christianity]] [[Islam and tolerance|with deference to other religions, such as Islam.]]
Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions "promoting the general welfare". This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better know as [[Obamacare]]. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, [[Democrats]] and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they "donate" money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is "a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties" or "a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,"<ref>http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00</ref> or "open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc." or "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties."<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> In practical usage, the term "liberal" is more closely synonymous with "radical," "immoral," "anti-freedom," or "bad."

==Liberals and Uncharitableness==
[[Image:228130875 35181424e3.jpg|thumb|right|175px|[[United States|American]] Liberals have been observed to give less to charity than American conservatives.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref> In addition, [[per capita]] [[atheism|atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] in the United States [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2] ]]
''For more information please see'': [[Liberals and uncharitableness]] and [[Atheism and charity]]

In March of 2008, [[George Will]] wrote at [[RealClearPolitics]] concerning the [[United States]]:
{{cquote|Sixteen months ago, [[Arthur C. Brooks]], a professor at [[Syracuse University]], published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than [[conservative]]s....

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html</ref>}}
[[Atheism|Atheists]] and [[agnosticism|agnostics]] often reject [[Bible|Biblical]] [[morality]] (and therefore [[conservative Christianity]] ) and hold to [[moral relativism]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref> Therefore, it is not surprising that [[per capita]] atheists and agnostics in [[United States|America]] [[Atheism and charity|give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists]].[http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians][http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/][http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2]

=== Liberal politicians and uncharitableness ===
The political magazine the [[American Spectator]] featured an article which focused on [[liberal politicians and uncharitableness]] exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.<ref>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1</ref>

In addition, [[Barack Obama]] has been criticized concerning [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness|his lack of charitable giving]].

== Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity ==

''See also:'' [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] and [[Liberal Christianity]]

According to a 2007 study reported in the ''Journal of Family Issues'', adherents of [[liberal Christianity]] are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]].<ref>[http://www.sagepub.com/hillhsstudy/articles/Chapter10_Article%2001.pdf Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?]</ref>

As noted above, liberals are [[Evolution and liberalism|more likely]] to adhere to evolutionary belief than conservatives. A study conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.<ref>[http://creation.com/morals-decline-linked-to-belief-in-evolution Morals decline linked to evolution]</ref>

== Liberalism and bestiality ==

See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|260px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] ]]
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of bestiality (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]])<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]] (Princeton University is a very liberal school - see: [[Liberalism and bestiality]]).<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. <ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref> In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.<ref>[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview]</ref>

Joe Carter's ''[[First Things]]'' article entitled ''The Dangerous Mind'' declares concerning Peter Singer declared:
{{cquote|Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the [[Animal rights|animal liberation movement]] and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref>}}

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality "rights" have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality "rights" (see: [[Homosexuality and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100108943/the-gay-rights-movement-has-emboldened-americas-bestiality-advocates/ The dark side of sexual freedom: American 'zoophiles' take on the language of equality - October 5, 2011 - The Telegraph]</ref>

In 2010, the liberal state of [[Washington]] has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: [[Washington state and bestiality]]).<ref>[http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_database/statistics/state_ranking.php?year=2010&search=go Pet Abuse -2010]</ref><ref>[http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/apportionment-pop-text.php 2010 United States Census data]</ref><ref>[http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/25/new-poll-identifies-most-liberal-and-conservative-states/ 2011 Political map - CNN]</ref>

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of [[Massachusetts]] tried to soften its bestiality laws.<ref>[Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]</ref>
[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref>[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]
The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the [[Old Testament]] [[Pentateuch|Jewish Law]], punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and deception]]).

A study found that "Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively)."<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1778686 A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff - Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.]</ref> The atheist population [[Atheism and suicide|has a higher suicide rate]] and [[Atheism and marriageability|lower marriage rates]] than the general population (see: [[Atheism and suicide]] and [[Atheism and marriageability]] and [[Atheism and health]]).

For more information please see:

*[[Atheism and bestiality]]

*[[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Liberalism and bestiality]]

*[[Homosexuality and bestiality]]

*[[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

*[[Wikipedia on bestiality]]

*[[Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

*[[Netherlands and bestiality|The liberal Netherlands and bestiality]]

*[[Skeptic Skatje Myers' comments on bestiality]]

*[[Joseph Stalin's ape-men experiments]]
=== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ===

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Liberals and Superstition==
[[Image:2384975035_230a0eac30.jpg‎‎|right|150px]]

The [[Wall Street Journal]] reported: "A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. <ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html]</ref>

Also, in September of 2008, the [[Wall Street Journal]] reported:
{{cquote|The reality is that the [[New Atheism|New Atheist]] campaign, by discouraging [[religion]], won't create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that's not a conclusion to take on faith — it's what the empirical data tell us.

"What Americans Really Believe," a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that [[Conservative Christianity|traditional Christian religion]] greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of [[astrology]]. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience, such as evolution than evangelical Christians....

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book "The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener," skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in [[pseudoscience]], cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html</ref>}}

== Liberalism in the United States Today ==
[[File:Smear merchants.jpg|right|200px]]
[[Democrats]] and most media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are blatantly liberal.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref> Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following [[acronym]]: SIN. Liberals (1) '''s'''hift the subject, they (2) '''i'''gnore the facts, and they (3) '''n'''ame call.<ref>Scott Baker. [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-herman-cain-give-the-dont-miss-speech-at-cpac/ Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?], ''[[The Blaze]], February 12, 2011.</ref><ref>[[YouTube]]. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N3-j3HM7-A& Herman Cain: "Stupid People Are Ruining America"], February 11, 2011.</ref>

* Liberals typically support a "mixed" economy, a policy similar to that of [[fascism]]. <ref>{{cite web|url=http://fora.tv/2008/01/30/Liberal_Traits_of_Fascism|title=Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg.}}</ref>

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on [[compassion]], [[decency]], and [[social justice]] (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of [[civic virtue]] against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/the_disgrace_of_liberalism.html]
{{cquote|There's another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. <ref> [http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=liberal+teachers&fr=yfp-t-501&fp_ip=MX&u=duncankennedy.net/documents/Liberal%2520Values%2520in%2520Legal%2520Education.pdf&w=liberal+liberals+teachers+teacher&d=BNZFhPReRjC1&icp=1&.intl=us Liberal Values in Legal Education] Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)</ref>}}

===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

=== American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism ===
''
See also:'' [[American atheism]] and [[Decline of atheism]] and [[Global atheism]]

Due to the explosive growth of [[global Christianity]] in traditional cultures and their influence on Western [[Christianity]] and the higher birth rate of [[Conservative Christianity|conservative Christians]] and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book ''Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth?'' concerning America:
{{cquote|High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the [[Culture War|culture wars]] towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.<ref>[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/05/why-are-years-2012-and-2020-key-years.html Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?]</ref>}}

==Liberalism in Europe today==

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is a party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref>

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just as in the US, "liberal" may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>

==Historical Liberalism ==
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref>

==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and traditions derived from Northern European Protestantism.

See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].

== Notable liberal "intellects" ==

''See also:'' [[Infamous liberals]]

* [[Margaret Sanger]]

* [[Adolf Hitler]]

* [[Joseph Stalin]]

* [[Kim Jong-Un]]

* [[Mao Zedong]]

*[[John Wayne Gacy]] - In an interview where he denied killing any of his victims, [[serial killer]] John Wayne Gacy said he was [[bisexuality|bisexual]] and "very liberal".<ref>http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4</ref> Gacy was also a [[Democratic Party]] activist who had his picture taken with [[Rosalynn Carter]].<ref>http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527</ref>

==Liberal Organizations of thought==
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]]
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[ACORN|ACORN - Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now]]
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.|ANSWER - Act Now to Stop War and End Racism]]
*[[CAIR|CAIR - Council on American-Islamic Relations]]
*[[Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]]
*[[Democratic National Committee]]
*[[Greenpeace]]
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]
*[[National Education Association]]
*[[National Organization of Women|NOW - National Organization of Women]]
*[[PETA|PETA - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]]
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]
*[[Progressives for Obama]]
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]
*[[SEIU|SEIU - Service Employees International Union]]
*[[U.S. Peace Council]]
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]

==Quotes on Liberals==
"I never use the words [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]]. It's [[liberals]] and [[Americans]]." -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under [[Ronald Reagan]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==

* [[Conservative resources]]
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]
* [[Classical liberal]]
* [[Drinking Liberally]]
* [[Godless liberal]]
* [[Last wordism]]
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]
* [[Liberal Christianity]]
* [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]]
* [[Liberal Democrats]]
* [[Liberal Elite]]
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]
* [[Liberal Fascism]]
* [[Liberal friendship]]
* [[Liberal Gloss]]
* [[Liberal grading]]
* [[Liberal hypocrisy]]
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]
* [[Liberal labels]]
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]
* [[Liberal logic]]
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]
* [[Liberal Party]]
* [[Liberal supremacist]]
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]
* [[Progressives]]
* [[Scientific Illiteracy and Liberals]]

==Further Information==
* [[Best_New_Conservative_Words#New_Liberal_Terms|New Liberal Terms]]
* [[Conservative Links]]
* http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Political Ideologies]]
[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Public schools in the United States

2013-06-09T19:44:27Z

Ryancsh: Undo revision 1055586 by TheTruthIsHere (talk) Parody...this guy is dedicated

[[File:800px-Warning signs at CHS.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Because of violence, vandalism, and other undesirable elements, this public school has a glaring sign warning of the on-campus surveillance cameras at its parking lot entrance.]]
'''[[Public schools]] in the [[United States]]''' have become predominantly [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]]<ref>[http://www.exodusmandate.org/art_exodus_from_public_schools_gets_helping_hand.htm Exodus from "public schools" gets a helping hand], Exodus Mandate, Sept 15, 1998</ref><ref>For example, "in 2005, officials at East Brunswick High School adopted a policy prohibiting representatives of the school district from participating in student-initiated prayer." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61806]</ref><ref>From 2004 to 2006, a [[public school]] banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. Principal "Summa, having learned of a complaint by a teacher and of the students' Bible study, told fourth-grade teacher Virginia Larue to nix the group's recess meeting. ... Larue later told one of Luke's Bible study colleagues the group could no longer meet at recess."[http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref><ref>[[Atheists]] routinely impose their views on [[public schools]], though liberals deny it. For example, a court prohibited a moment of silence in [[Illinois]] "Township High School District 214 after atheist activist Rob Sherman challenged" it.[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-moment_of_silence_bothmay30,0,7722271.story]</ref>
government institutions that employ 3 million people and spend $411.5 billion annually at a cost of $10,770 per student.<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=97 Statistics about education]</ref> [[Liberals]] censor [[classroom prayer]], the [[Ten Commandments]], sharing of [[faith]] in classrooms during school hours, and teaching [[Bible]]-based [[morality]].<ref>''See, e.g.'', ''[[Stone v. Graham]]'' (1980) (excluding Ten Commandments from public school).</ref><ref>A public school banned [[Bible]] study by children ... ''during recess''. A teacher complained about the use of the Bible and the principal then censored the study activity, according to a sworn statement by a teacher told to stop it. [http://knoxnews.com/news/2008/jan/03/recess-bible-study-spurs-lawsuit/]</ref> Mandatory [[Homosexual Agenda|homosexual indoctrination]] is common as early as elementary school in more [[liberal]] states.<ref>http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html</ref> The failures of underperforming public schools are paradigm of [[socialism]], along with [[landfills]] and the [[Canada|Canadian]] healthcare system.

The following are characteristics of US public schools:

*30% of public school students fail to graduate from [[high school]],<ref name="graduate">"Only 70% of all students in public high schools graduate, and only 32% of all students leave high school qualified to attend four-year colleges."[http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_03.htm]</ref> and more than 40% of minorities fail to graduate;<ref>"Only 71 percent of kids graduate from high school within four years, and for minorities the numbers are even worse -- 58 percent for Hispanics and 55 percent for African Americans," [Bill Gates] wrote. "If the decline in childhood deaths [in developing countries] is one of the most positive statistics ever, these are some of the most negative."[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/29/AR2009032901353.html?wpisrc=newsletter]</ref> the real drop-out rate may be 50%.<ref>http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/47272207.html</ref>
*Nearly 70% of students leave high school unqualified to attend four-year college, and many are unable to hold a steady job.<ref name="graduate"/>
*A 2007 study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse found that 77% of students between eighth and 12th grade had used illicit drugs.<ref>According to Monitoring the Future, a study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, illicit drug use is up among students between eighth and 12th grade. In 1991, 62 percent had used illicit drugs. In 2007, the number jumped to 77 percent. [http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20081207/NEWS08/812070305/1002]</ref> Fatal overdoses are common but underreported.<ref>Fatal overdoses are common, although often underreported.[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E5DB123EF932A25750C0A9629C8B63 Reporting of a heroin overdose by 16-year-old [[public school]] student was an exception to the underreporting].</ref> Public schools are required to present [[Drug education|drug "education"]] to kids.
*More than 60% of public school teenagers (in one regional study) watch more than 3 hours of television a day, compared with a national average of 35%<ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/ (study of Memphis students)</ref>
*About half of the viable pregnancies among girls attending public school end in [[abortion|abortions]] and about half end in birth. Public schools "[[Sex education|educate]]" kids about sex.<ref>"There is zero shame [to [[teenage pregnancy]]]," the school nurse observed.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/12/AR2008121203507.html]</ref>
*"About 160,000 students miss school daily because they [[fear]] being [[Bully|bullied]]," and students viciously fight each other and post videos of it on [[YouTube|Youtube.com]].<ref>One victim is now "being [[homeschooled]] at state expense."[http://starbulletin.com/2008/05/18/news/story01.html]</ref>
*20% of students had been dangerously "[[binge drinking]]" in the previous 30 days, and 50% of seniors regularly drink illegally, according to a 2007 study of Ottawa County, Michigan.<ref>The Grand Rapids Press The Grand Rapids Press: Ottawa County confronts teen drinking, By Greg Chandler, December 04, 2008[http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_county_confronts_teen_d.html]</ref><ref name="Oregon">http://www.mlive.com/chronicle/news/index.ssf/2008/12/ottawa_co_youth_survey_surpris.html</ref>
*10-20% of students become [[Addiction|addicted]] to [[cigarettes]]<ref name="Oregon"/><ref>http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/memphis-youth-make-progress-on-risky-behavior/</ref>
*More than 10% of public high schools have a [[Homosexual Agenda|pro-homosexual]] student club
*The majority of public school students are completely ignorant about the [[Bible]], even as [[Bible history|history]] and literature
*35% of students are overweight<ref name="health">http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/29/students-health-needs-attention/</ref>
*Health screening of public schools in Memphis, Tennessee, found that nearly 10% of students have mental health problems<ref name="health"/>.
*California public schools, largest in the nation, now rank at the bottom in academic achievement.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/us/us_california_broken_schools/2009/06/21/227552.html High-Spending California School System Collapsing] AP, June 21, 2009</ref>
''See Also: [[Public school culture]]''

== 4-day week ==

In many states, administrators and other public school employees are paid full salaries, at substantial public expense, but at some of their schools actual teaching occurs only 4 days a week, rather than 5. These states include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming ... and Washington passed legislation to allow it there too.<ref>http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/educ/school-calendar-four-day-school-week-overview.aspx</ref>

==History==

In 1647, [[Massachusetts]] [[Puritans]] enacted the second law, after Scotland in 1616,<ref>The Social, Economic & Political Reasons for the Decline of Gaelic in Scotland [http://www.scottishhistory.com/articles/highlands/gaelic/gaelic_page1.html]</ref> establishing universal public [[school]]s in the English-speaking world to block the attempts by "ould deluder Satan to keepe men from the whole knowledge of the Scriptures".<ref>''Family Encyclopedia of American History'' (Reader's Digest 1975)</ref> Each settlement larger than 50 families was required to pay a [[teacher|schoolmaster]] to teach reading, writing and religious doctrine to the [[children]] in the community. Beginning in 1670, Massachusetts provided [[taxation|tax]] funding for school maintenance. This model was then copied throughout the colonies, and even throughout the world.

Many children did not attend public school for the first two centuries. It was not until 1852 that Massachusetts became the first state to require attendance by students aged 6 through 16, and it was not until 1918 that all states had [[compulsory attendance]] laws. High schools did not generally exist until after the [[Civil War]], and the first American [[kindergarten]] didn't exist until 1856 in Watertown, Wisconsin.

==Views on morals==

===So-called "character education"===

In response to the perception that public schools have stopped teaching morality, many state education departments have or are in the process of developing "morality" that avoid good and evil, right and wrong, and instead present under the heading of "character" education.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3971/is_199910/ai_n8866284]</ref> The lack of appreciation for right and wrong can surprise outsiders, and even school principals. When one public school student was charged with [[felony]] [[computer crime]] for altering the grades of 20 students, the principal said, we "want to teach them what's right and wrong, and it's tough for some kids to catch on to the idea that changing grades is the wrong thing to do."<ref>http://cw2.trb.com/news/kwgn-student-grade-felony,0,7871401.story</ref> The impact of the removal of morality from the [[public school]] curriculum (which is also used in private schools) is that "more than one in three boys (35 percent) and one-fourth of the girls (26 percent) — a total of 30 percent overall — admitted stealing from a store within the past year."<ref>http://charactercounts.org/programs/reportcard/index.html</ref> Liberal politicians are the most frequent opponents of initiatives designed to build moral fiber in the public school system, with organizations like the [[ACLU]] and teacher's unions devoting a significant amount of their resources towards this end. In 2010, a school board in [[North Dakota]] decided to change the name of their mascot from the "Satans." Liberals unrolled a large-scale media campaign that blanketed the district with pro-Satan propaganda in an attempt to keep the name, but they were unsuccessful. <ref>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-11/news/ct-perspec-0311-things-20120311_1_devil-man-great-deceiver-native-americans</ref>

=== Prayer ===

:''See also: [[Classroom prayer]]''

The White House announced the release of Revised Religious Guidelines for America's Public Schools on May 29, 1998. Within this announcement, President [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] stated, "Nothing in the [[First Amendment]] converts our public schools into religion-free zones, or requires all religious expression to be left behind at the school house door." --President Clinton, July 12, 1998<ref>http://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/05-1998/wh-0530.html</ref>

In 2003, the Education Department released the following guidelines that clarified and added requirements to Public Schools to ensure the religious rights of students.<ref>http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17550</ref>
<blockquote>
Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religious meetings among themselves could lose federal money, the Education Department said late last week. 
 
The guidance reflects the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration’s push to ensure that schools give teachers and students as much freedom to pray as the courts have allowed. 
The department makes clear that teachers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their religious views.
The instructions, released by the department on Feb. 7, broadly follow the same direction given by the [[Clinton administration]] and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by students, not by school officials. 
 
The department, however, also offered some significant additions, including more details on such contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds are tied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is on schools to prove compliance through a yearly report.
</blockquote>

===Teaching the Bible in Public Schools ===
The [[National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools]]<ref>http://www.bibleinschools.net/</ref> (NCBCPS) provides a program for teaching the Bible in public schools. Currently, the NCBCPS's Bible curriculum has been voted into 462 school districts (over 1,900 high schools) in 38 states. Over 210,000 students have already taken this course nationwide, on the high school campus, during school hours, for credit.

==Suppression and intolerance of alternative views==
[[Activist judges]] have proclaimed that teaching [[creationism]]<ref>https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html</ref> and [[intelligent design]]<ref>www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf</ref> in public schools is unconstitutional because they claim that such teachings would amount to a government establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.<ref>''See'' ''Kitzmiller'', 400 F.Supp.2d at 765</ref>

==Educational outcomes==

===Declining literacy ===
Since the rapid expansion and liberalization of public schools after [[World War II]], students' [[literacy]] levels have dropped significantly. While the average 14-year-old had a vocabulary of 25,000 words in 1945, the equivalent student in 2000 had a vocabulary of only 10,000 words, a severe disadvantage in an increasingly textual world.<ref>''Utne Reader'' (July-August 2000), 28-9.</ref>

===Liberal bias in textbooks===
:''See also: [[Textbook bias]]''

[[Textbook]]s (K-12) have been systematically analyzed in a study funded by the U.S. government. The 1986 findings were that massive, systematic [[liberal bias]] exists, resulting in several information blackouts in four key areas of modern American life—[[marriage]], [[religion]], [[politics]], and [[business]]. While an actual conspiracy was then ruled out, the cause was found to be a "a very widespread [[secular]] and [[liberal]] mindset" pervading "the leadership in the world of education [and textbook publishing]"<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X</ref>.

Professor Larry Schwikart, of the [[University of Dayton]], wrote a book about biased textbooks. False claims common in those texts included that the [[Founding Fathers]] wanted a "wall of [[Separation of church and state|separation" between church and state]], that "[[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln]] issued the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] only because he needed [[Black Soldiers in the Civil War|black soldiers]]", and that "[[Mikhail Gorbachev]], not [[Ronald Reagan]], was responsible for ending the [[Cold War]]". <ref>http://www.emailwire.com/release/20086-Controversial-Historian-on-the-Price-of-Business-Show.html</ref>

Evidence for bias in school textbooks includes promotion of [[Homosexual]] agenda, support of liberal viewpoint, as well as support of the unproven theory of evolution. Most Biology textbooks do not provide the [[Creationist]] viewpoint a chance, or even a second thought.

===Non-Dismissal of Tenured Teachers===
Due to the strength of the nation's teachers' [[Labor union|union]], it is nearly impossible to fire a bad performing teacher with [[tenure]]. The process can take years and involves countless steps to even attempt. The union claims that the protections are needed against arbitrary and malicious lawsuits.

The New York public schools system has approximately 700 teachers accused of insubordination to sexual misconduct. They remain in seclusion from the classroom but are paid full salaries until their cases are heard, sometimes from months to years later. All because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them. <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_rubber_rooms/2009/06/22/227959.html 700 NYC Teachers Paid to Do Nothing] AP, June 22, 2009</ref>

[[File:Pathtodismissal.JPG|center|thumb|800px| Flow chart for firing teachers in the nations second largest [[school district]], Los Angeles Unified School district]]

==Graduates==
=== Before 1962 ===
Given that public schools educate about 90% of [[Americans]], it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school-sponsored prayer in 1962. Here is an impressive list of people who attended public schools ''before'' the banning of school-sponsored prayer.

*[[Ronald Reagan]]<ref>http://www.dixonil.com/reagan/reagan2.htm</ref> graduated from Dixon High School, Illinois
*[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<ref>http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/press_releases/2007/PR07_11_August_02_2007_Eisenhower_Co_Sponsor_Little_Rock.pdf</ref> attended Abilene High School in Abilene, Kansas
*[[Richard M. Nixon]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/edu/836/000068632/</ref> attended Fullerton and Whittier High Schools, California
*[[Gerald Ford]]<ref>http://www.visitgrandrapids.org/ford-facts.php</ref> attended Grand Rapids South High School, Michigan
*[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/062/000023990/</ref> attended Johnson City High School, Texas
*[[Harry S Truman]]<ref>http://www.nps.gov/nr/twhp/wwwlps/lessons/103truman/103visual1.htm</ref> attended Independence High School, Missouri
*[[H. Ross Perot]]<ref>http://www.famoustexans.com/rossperot.htm</ref> attended public schools and Texarkana Junior College, Texas
*[[Richard Cheney]]<ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/598/000022532/</ref> graduated from Natrona County High School in Casper, Wyoming.
*[[Colin Powell]] graduated from Morris High School, NY in 1954 and received his B.A. in geology from the City College of New York in 1958 <ref>http://gale.cengage.com/free_resources/bhm/bio/powell_c.htm</ref>
*[[Billy Graham]] graduated from Sharon High School, NC in May 1936<ref>http://online-bibleconcordance.com/Ministers/BillyGraham.aspx</ref>
*[[Michael Medved]] graduated from Palisades High School, CA <ref>michaelmedved.townhall.com/About.aspx</ref>
*[[The Wright Brothers]] attended public schools in Richmond, India and Dayton OH but did not graduate <ref>http://www.kyrene.org/schools/brisas/sunda/inventor/wright/index.html</ref>
*[[Roy Jay Glauber]], Nobel laureate, graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, NY in 1941. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/738/000138324/</ref>
*[[Frederick Reines]], Nobel laureate, attended Union Hill High School, NJ, during the late 1930's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/052/000099752/</ref>
*[[Oliver North]], US Army Officer, political commentator, graduated from Ockawamick High School in 1961. <ref>http://libraryoflibrary.com/E_n_c_p_d_Ollie_North.html</ref>

=== After 1962 ===
Here is a mostly unimpressive list of people who attended public school ''after'' school-sponsored prayer was banned in 1962:

*[[Brad Pitt]], actor, graduated from Kickapoo High School in Springfield, Missouri, 1981; dropped out of college.<ref>http://www.rolemodel.net/brad_pitt.cfm
</ref>
*[[Tom Cruise]], actor, attended several public high schools including Glen Ridge High School, New Jersey during the 1970's. <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/791/000022725/
</ref>
*[[John Sununu]], former one-term Senator from [[New Hampshire]], graduated from Salem High School in the 1970's;<ref>http://www.sununu.senate.gov/biography.html</ref> claiming to be [[pro-life]], Sununu arranged for the nomination of [[David Souter]] to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], where he then repeatedly voted on the side of [[abortion]]
*[[John Edwards]], indicted in 2011 on allegations arising from his affair with a mistress, was a former one-term Senator from [[North Carolina]] and two-time unsuccessful candidate for nomination for president, attended public school in Robbins, N.C. during the 1960's.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/primaries/edwards_bio.html</ref>
*[[Spike Lee]], producer, actor, graduated from John Dewey High School, Brooklyn, NY.<ref>http://movies.nytimes.com/person/99175/Spike-Lee/biography</ref>
*[[Laura Bush]] attended James Bowie Elementary School, San Jacinto Junior High School, and Midland Lee High School in Midland, Texas (Graduated 1964); came out in support of [[gay marriage]] and [[abortion]] in 2010.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/laura-bush-supports-gay-marriage-abortion/story?id=10629213</ref>
*[[William J. Clinton]]<ref>http://www.hotsprings.org/things_to_do/historic_hotsprings/presidents_hometown.asp</ref> graduated from Hot Springs High School in Arkansas in 1964, and became the only president impeached in the 20th century.
*Anthony Weiner, a congressman who resigned in disgrace in 2011 after first denying but then confirming an indecent use of [[Twitter]], graduated from a public high school in [[Brooklyn]].
*[[Steve Jobs]], founder of [[Apple Inc.]], graduated from Homestead High School in Cupertino, CA in 1972; his colleague, [[Steve Wozniak]], graduated from the same high school in 1968.
*[[Eminem]], a [[liberal]] [[rapper]], repeatedly failed 9th grade in public school and ultimately dropped out.
*[[Alan Colmes]], a liberal news commentator, attended public school in [[New York City]].
*[[Sarah Palin]], vice presidential candidate on the [[Republican Party]] ticket in 2008 and favorite of some [[Tea Party]] groups, went to [[Wasilla High School]] and graduated in 1982 and then attended 5 different colleges before becoming more [[conservative]] later in life.<ref>http://outhouserag.typepad.com/outhouserag/2008/09/sarah-palin-198.html</ref>
*[[Rick Perry]], [[Texas]] governor, infringed on [[parental rights]] by requiring young girls to receive an HPV vaccine.
*[[Kenneth D. Cockrell]], [[Texas]] Graduated from Rockdale High School, Rockdale, Texas, in 1968. A veteran of five spaceflights, Cockrell has logged more than 1,560 hours in space.<ref>http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/cockrell.htmll</ref>
*[[Russell Alan Hulse]], [[New York]] Graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, New York, in 1966. Winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics.<ref>http://alumni.bxscience.edu/?page=NotableAlumni</ref>
*[[Richard Axel]], [[New York]] Graduated from Stuyvesant High School, New York, New York, in 1963. Winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Axel</ref>
*[[Hugh David Politzer]], [[New York]] Graduated from Bronx High School of Science, Bronx, New York, in 1966. Winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physics.<ref>http://alumni.bxscience.edu/?page=NotableAlumni</ref>
*[[Christine O'Donnell]] graduated from Moorestown High School in 1987.<ref>[http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010100363&nclick_check=1 "Delaware politics: From middle-class New Jersey, moral activist Christine O'Donnell knew 'God was calling'", ''Delaware Online'']</ref>
*[[Scott Walker]] graduated from Delavan-Darien High School in 1986.<ref>[http://walworthcountytoday.com/news/2010/sep/07/rock-county-close-home-walker/ Ames, Ann Marie, "Rock County Close to Home for Walker", ''Walworth County Today'', Sept. 7, 2010]</ref>
*[[Paul Ryan]], an establishment [[Republican]], graduated from Joseph A. Craig High School, Janesville, WI in 1988.<ref>http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/06/16/politics/wis-ryan/</ref>
*[[Sharron Angle]] (born 1949) graduated from Wooster High School in Reno, Nevada.<ref>[http://www.sharronangle.com/sharron-angle-biography "Sharron Angle, Biography"]</ref>
*[[Jon Huntsman]], Republican Presidential candidate and former Governor of Utah, attended Highland High School in Salt Lake City, Utah before he dropped out in 1978 to pursue a career as a rock and roll keyboardist.<ref>[http://www.jon2012.com/jon]</ref>
*[[Michelle Bachmann]], Republican member of the House of Representatives graduated from Anoka High School, Anoka, Minnesota in 1974.<ref>[http://www.startribune.com/local/north/129276683.html?refer=y]</ref>
*[[Mike Huckabee]], former Republican Governor of Arkansas, graduated from Hope High School, Hope Arkansas, in 1974.<ref>[http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=108]</ref>
*[[Benjamin Netanyahu]], Prime Minister of Israel, Graduated from Cheltenham High School, Wyncote, Pennsylvania, in 1967. <ref>[http://cheltenhamalumni.org/BIOS/netanyahu-benjamin.htm]</ref>
*[[Rand Paul]], Republican Senator, Graduated from Brazoswood High School, Clute, Texas in 1981. <ref>[http://politics.laws.com/rand-paul]</ref>

==See Also==

*[[Public school culture]]
*[[Teacher Pay]]
*[[Atheism and public schools]]
*[[Parental rights]] (focusing on the rights of parents to control the education, upbringing and disclipline of their children)
*[[Education in the United Kingdom]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[category:Schools]]
[[category:United States History]]
{{Liberalism}}

==External Links==
*[http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1610/466/Dumb_As_A_Rock:_You_Will_Be_Absolutely_Amazed_At_The_Things_That_U.S._High_School_Students_Do_Not_Know.html Dumb As A Rock: You Will Be Absolutely Amazed At The Things That U.S. High School Students Do Not Know]
*[http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03/28/9-notorious-teacher-sex-scandals/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058?test=latestnews 8 Bizarre Teacher Scandals You Won't Believe]

North Korea

2013-06-09T19:42:14Z

Ryancsh: Undo revision 1055583 by TheTruthIsHere (talk) Parody...Admins Block this guy.

{{Country
|name =조선민주주의인민공화국 Chosŏn Minjujuŭi Inmin Konghwaguk ''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''
|map =Korea north rel 2005.jpg
|map2 =NorthKorea location.png
|flag =Flag of North Korea.png
|arms =Arms of North Korea.png
|capital =P'yongyang
|government =Communist totalitarian state
|language =Korean
|area =46,526 sq mi
|pop =23,301,725(2007)
|gdp-year =$22.85 billion (2006)
|gdp-pc =$1,007 (2006)
|currency = North Korean won
}}
'''North Korea''' is the world's most severe [[totalitarian]] [[dictatorship]] and one of the poorest and most [[famine]]-stricken nations on earth. It lies in eastern Asia and occupies the Korean peninsula north of a line that roughly follows the 38th parallel.
It was ruled by self-absorbed dictator and "Dear Leader" [[Kim Jong Il]], who succeeded his father the "Great Leader" [[Kim Il Sung]]. Upon Kim Jong-Il's death, his son [[Kim Jong-un]] officially took over.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/world/asia/packaging-of-Kim-Jong-un-in-north-korea.html?pagewanted=all New York Times; 1 February; To Sell a New Leader, North Korea Finds a Mirror Is Handy]</ref>

Its official name is '''Democratic People's Republic of Korea''', but its government does not follow Western ideas of [[democracy]]. Rather, it is organized along [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] lines. Its Supreme People's Assembly is merely a [[rubber stamp]] parliament.<ref>http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/05/21/North-Korea-slammed-over-Cheonan-sinking/UPI-48941274459460/</ref>

The official North Korean ideology is known as [[Juche]] (which roughly translates as "national self-reliance"), and since the mid 1990s, [[Songun]] ("military first"). A cult-like devotion to the "Great Leader" and "Dear Leader" is expected of citizens, and heavily promoted in the North Korean news media which has little actual news and mostly consists of effusive praise toward [[Kim Jong Il]], grandiose and unsubstantiated claims about great feats by him and his father, and repetitious admonitions that the Korean people are totally united as one behind his leadership. In contrast between 600,000 and 3.5 million North Koreans have died of starvation in recent years because the Kim government has so mismanaged the economy, particularly agriculture, and has hampered outside efforts at relief.<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071009/COMMENTARY/110090010/1012&template=nextpage</ref>

==People==
*Population (2006): 23.1 million.
*Annual growth rate: About +0.98%.
*Ethnic groups: [[Korean]]; small ethnic Chinese and Japanese populations.
*Religions: [[Buddhism]], [[Confucianism]], [[Shamanism]], [[Chongdogyo]], [[Christian]]; autonomous religious activities have been virtually nonexistent since 1945.
*Language: Korean.
*Education: Years compulsory--11. Attendance--3 million (primary, 1.5 million; secondary, 1.2 million; tertiary, 0.3 million). Literacy--99%.
*Health (1998): Medical treatment is free; one doctor for every 700 inhabitants; one hospital bed for every 350; there are severe shortages of medicines and medical equipment. Infant mortality rate--23.29 /1,000 (2006 est.). Life expectancy--males 68 yrs., females 74 yrs. (2006 est.)

Amnesty International published a report in June 2010 which alleges that the North Korean health care system is "in shambles". Interviews with 40 individuals who defected from that country indicate a wide-spread shortage of medicine and medical implements; a lack of ambulatory services in major cities; the use of unsterilized needles; major operations and amputations done without anesthesia, on a system which spends the equivalent of one dollar per person per year on health care. This discrepancy is compounded by the fact that many citizens are forced to endure a starvation diet by subsisting on grass, tree bark and roots.<ref>http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100715/Amnesty-International-reveals-the-rotting-health-care-system-in-North-Korea.aspx</ref><ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100715/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_crumbling_health_care</ref>

==Religion==
Government policy and practice severely restricted the practice of religion, and it is a dogmatically [[atheist]] regime. The 2007 KINU White Paper indicated that the regime utilizes authorized religious entities for external propaganda and political purposes, and that citizens are strictly barred from entering places of worship. Ordinary citizens consider such sites to be primarily sightseeing spots for foreigners. KINU concluded that the lack of churches or religious facilities in the provinces indicates that ordinary citizens do not enjoy religious freedom.

Little is known about the day-to-day life of religious persons in the country. Members of government-controlled religious groups did not appear to suffer discrimination. Some reports claimed, and circumstantial evidence suggested, that many, if not most of these groups, have been organized by the regime for propaganda and political purposes, including meeting with foreign religious visitors.

The number of religious believers is unknown but was estimated by the Government to be 10,000 Protestants, 10,000 Buddhists, and 4,000 Catholics. Estimates by South Korean and international church-related groups were considerably higher. In addition, the Chondogyo Young Friends Party, a government-approved group based on a traditional religious movement, had approximately 40,000 practitioners, according to the Government.<ref> See [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2008/108410.htm U.S. State Department "International Religious Freedom Report 2008"]</ref>

In Pyongyang there were reportedly four state-controlled Christian churches: two Protestant churches under lay leadership (Bongsu and Chilgol Churches), the Changchung Roman Catholic Church, and the Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church. The Chilgol Church is dedicated to the memory of former leader Kim Il-sung's mother, Kang Pan-sok, who was a Presbyterian deaconess. The number of congregants regularly worshiping at these churches is unknown.

The Presbyterian Church of Korea in the South was partnering with the Christian Association in North Korea to rebuild Bongsu Church. In the fall of 2006, a delegation of 90 Christians from South Korea visited the Bongsu church to celebrate completion of its first phase of renovation. According to religious leaders who traveled to the country, there were Protestant pastors at these churches, although it was not known if they were resident or visiting.

In its July 2002 report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee, the Government reported the existence of 500 "family worship centers." However, according to the 2007 Korea Institute for National Unification (KINU) White Paper, defectors interviewed were unaware of any such centers. Observers stated that "family worship centers" may be part of the state-controlled Korean Christian Federation, while an unknown number of "underground churches" operate apart from the Federation and are not recognized by the Government. Some NGOs and academics estimate there may be up to several hundred thousand underground Christians in the country. Others question the existence of a large-scale underground church or conclude that no reliable estimate of the number of underground religious believers exists. Individual underground congregations are reportedly very small and confined to private homes. At the same time, some NGOs reported that the individual churches are connected to each other through well-established networks. The regime has not allowed outsiders the access necessary to confirm such claims.

There were an estimated 300 Buddhist temples. Most were regarded as cultural relics, but religious activity was permitted in some. A few Buddhist temples and relics have been renovated or restored in recent years under a broad effort aimed at "preserving the Korean nation's cultural heritage." In 2007 reconstruction was completed on the Shingye or Singyesa (Holy Valley) Temple, which was destroyed during the Korean War. The Republic of Korea (ROK) Government and foreign tourists funded the reconstruction. A South Korean monk, the first to permanently reside in North Korea, has lived at the temple since 2004 but serves primarily as a guide for visiting tourists rather than as a pastor caring for Buddhists living in the area.

The Government announced in June 2007 that 500 monks and Buddhist followers were making day-long pilgrimages to the recently renovated Ryongthong temple in Kaesong strictly for religious purposes. Foreign diplomats in Pyongyang who visited the temple were told that the two monks living there may be joined by more. State-controlled press reported on several occasions that Buddhist ceremonies had been carried out in various locations. Official reporting also linked descriptions of such ceremonies with the broader theme of Korean unification.

The Holy Trinity Russian Orthodox Church opened in Pyongyang in 2006. The church was reportedly commissioned by Kim Jong-il after he visited an Orthodox cathedral in Russia in 2002. Two North Koreans who studied at the Russian Orthodox Seminary in Moscow have been ordained as priests and are serving at the church. The purported aim of the church was primarily to provide pastoral care of Russians in the country, but one religious leader with access to the country speculated that the church likely extended pastoral care to all Orthodox Koreans as well. Similar to other religious groups, no reliable data exists on the number of Orthodox believers.

Several foreigners residing in Pyongyang attended Korean-language services at the Christian churches on a regular basis. Some foreigners who visited the country stated that church services appeared staged and contained political content supportive of the regime, in addition to religious themes. Foreign legislators attending services in Pyongyang in previous years noted that congregations arrived at and departed services as groups on tour buses, and some observed that they did not include any children. Other foreigners noted that they were not permitted to have contact with congregants. Foreign observers had limited ability to ascertain the level of government control over these groups, but it was generally assumed they were monitored closely. According to the 2007 KINU White Paper, defectors reported being unaware of any recognized religious organizations that maintained branches outside of Pyongyang.

Several schools for religious education exist. There are 3-year colleges for training Protestant and Buddhist clergy. A religious studies program also was established at Kim Il-sung University in 1989; its graduates usually worked in the foreign trade sector. In 2000 a Protestant seminary was reopened with assistance from foreign missionary groups. Critics, including at least one foreign sponsor, charged that the Government opened the seminary only to facilitate reception of assistance funds from foreign faith-based NGOs. The Chosun Christian Federation, a religious group believed to be controlled by the Government, contributed to the curriculum used by the seminary. The Chosun Christian League operates the Pyongyang Theological Academy, a graduate institution that trains pastors affiliated with the Korean Christian Federation.

==Government and Political Conditions==
North Korea has a centralized government under the rigid control of the communist [[Workers' Party of Korea]] (WPK), to which all government officials belong. A few minor political parties are allowed to exist in name only. Kim Il-sung ruled North Korea from 1948 until his death in July 1994. Kim served both as Secretary General of the WPK and as President of North Korea.

Little is known about the actual lines of power and authority in the North Korean Government despite the formal structure set forth in the constitution. Following the death of Kim Il-sung, his son--Kim Jong-il--inherited supreme power. Kim Jong-il was named General Secretary of the KWP in October 1997, and in September 1998, the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA) reconfirmed Kim Jong-il as Chairman of the National Defense Commission and declared that position as the "highest office of state." However, the President of the Presidium of the National Assembly, Kim Yong-nam, serves as the nominal head of state. North Korea's 1972 constitution was amended in late 1992 and in September 1998.

The constitution designates the Central People's Committee (CPC) as the government's top policymaking body. The CPC makes policy decisions and supervises the cabinet, or State Administration Council (SAC). The SAC is headed by a premier and is the dominant administrative and executive agency.

Officially, the legislature, the SPA, is the highest organ of state power. Its members are elected every four years. Usually only two meetings are held annually, each lasting a few days. A standing committee elected by the SPA performs legislative functions when the Assembly is not in session. In reality, the Assembly serves only to ratify decisions made by the ruling KWP.

North Korea's judiciary is "accountable" to the SPA and the president. The SPA's standing committee also appoints judges to the highest court for four-year terms that are concurrent with those of the Assembly.

Administratively, North Korea is divided into nine provinces and four provincial-level municipalities--[[Pyongyang]], [[Chongjin]], [[Nampo]], and [[Kaesong]]. It also appears to be divided into nine military districts.

===Principal Party and Government Officials===
*Kim Il-Sung--Eternal President (deceased since 1995)
*Kim Jong-un--First Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea, First Chairman of the National Defense Commission, Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission; grandson of North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung
*Kim Yong-nam--President of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly; titular head of state
*Pak Gil-yon--Ambassador to DPRK Permanent Mission to the UN
*Pak Ui-chun--Minister of Foreign Affairs

===Propaganda===

The DPRK is notorious for its heavy use of political propaganda, revisionist history and [[cult of personality]] surrounding Kim Jong-il and Kim il-Sung. The media is heavily controlled and only state-controlled radio and television broadcasts are permitted for public consumption. This control allows the regime to propagate its many lies and perceptions of the country.

==== Cult of Personality ====

The North Korean state maintains an intense cult of personality surrounding Kim and his son, Kim Jong-il. All North Koreans wear badges with an image of either (or both) Kims and portraits of the deceased leader are voluminous both in cities and the countryside. The capital city of Pyonyang has over 600 statues of Kim, including a 25-metre bronze statue built in 1972 for his sixtieth birthday.

Kim's personality cult is largely based on historical revisionism and many absurd "facts" to emphasize his "divine" abilities and power. Among these:

*He was born under a double rainbow on the sacred Baektul Mountain in 1942. At the moment of his birth, a bright star lit up the sky, the seasons spontaneously changed from winter to spring and a double rainbow appeared in the sky.(In truth, he was born in Vyatskoye, Siberia in 1941.)<ref>http://asianhistory.about.com/od/profilesofasianleaders/p/BioKimJongil.htm</ref>

*During the Japanese colonial rule of Korea, he fought in more than 100,000 battles in 15 years (over 20 battles a day). (While Kim was in the Soviet army, he never participated in actual combat.)<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/champion/65/pers_cult.htm</ref>

*He scored eleven holes-in-one the first time he ever played a game of golf.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/02/16/kim.birthday.reut/</ref>

*He invented the hamburger. <ref>http://listverse.com/2010/05/30/top-10-crazy-facts-about-kim-jong-il/</ref>

*He scored a perfect 300 the first time he went bowling. <ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1222/Kim-Jong-il-Legendary-golfer-and-mythical-powers-even-in-death</ref>

*When he died, "the skies glowed red above Mount Paektu and the impenetrable sheet of ice at the heart of the mystical volcano cracked with a deafening roar." <ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/22/kim-jong-il-dies-myths_n_1164755.html</ref>

====Revisionist history====

Despite overwhelming historical and historiographical evidence, North Korean media and schools maintain the myth that the South as well as the United States attacked the North first. They thus responded by counter-attacking to liberate the nation in the "Fatherland Liberation War" <ref>http://www.voanews.com/content/north-koreas-war-history-is-mirror-opposite-world-view-96978424/165902.html</ref>. They also claim that the North was victorious despite the face that there is no peace treaty and no historical evidence to back such a claim.

====Anti-American and other propaganda ====

As well as the state-sponsored propaganda served up to its own citizens, the DPRK attempts to push its message onto South Koreans as well.

The best examples are found on the North Korean side of the DMZ, where massive hillside signs point to the U.S. as an enemy of reunification and boast of a prosperous life in the North. More absurd is Jikong-dong, also known as "Propaganda village," a fake town intended to show the fine living conditions in the North.<ref>http://www.nickspics.net/v/Travel/South_Korea_2009/IMG_2075_5DMK2.JPG.html</ref> The town is devoid of human life and was quickly exposed as a sham when Southern officials noticed that all city lights turned on and off at the same time each day, most windows contained no glass and there was no evident civilian life. The town also boasts the world's tallest flagpole, bearing a North Korean flag weighing 600 pounds.<ref>http://www.flickr.com/photos/aaronbrownphotos/3514929586/</ref>

===Foreign Relations===
North Korea's relationship with the South has determined much of its post-[[World War II]] history and still undergirds much of its foreign policy. North and South Korea have had a difficult and acrimonious relationship from the Korean War. In recent years, North Korea has pursued a mixed policy--seeking to develop economic relations with South Korea and to win the support of the South Korean public for greater North-South engagement while at the same time continuing to denounce the R.O.K.'s security relationship with the United States and maintaining a threatening conventional force posture on the DMZ and in adjacent waters. Technically, neither the North or the South recognizes its counterpart as an official nation, and both declare themselves to be the sole legitimate government of the Korean peninsula.

The military demarcation line (MDL) of separation between the belligerent sides at the close of the Korean War divides North Korea from South Korea. A demilitarized zone (DMZ) extends for 2,000 meters (just over 1 mile) on either side of the MDL. Both the North and South Korean governments hold that the MDL is only a temporary administrative line, not a permanent border.

During the postwar period, both Korean governments have repeatedly affirmed their desire to reunify the Korean Peninsula, but until 1971 the two governments had no direct, official communications or other contact.

====Reunification Efforts Since 1971====
In August 1971, North and South Korea held talks through their respective Red Cross societies with the aim of reuniting the many Korean families separated following the division of Korea and the Korean War. In July 1972, the two sides agreed to work toward peaceful reunification and an end to the hostile atmosphere prevailing on the peninsula. Officials exchanged visits, and regular communications were established through a North-South coordinating committee and the Red Cross. These initial contacts broke down in 1973 following South Korean President Park Chung-hee's announcement that the South would seek separate entry into the United Nations, and after the kidnapping of South Korean opposition leader Kim Dae-jung--perceived as friendly to unified entry into the UN--by South Korean intelligence services. There was no other significant contact between North and South Korea until 1984.

Dialogue was renewed in September 1984, when South Korea accepted the North's offer to provide relief goods to victims of severe flooding in South Korea. Red Cross talks to address the plight of separated families resumed, as did talks on economic and trade issues and parliamentary-level discussions. However, the North then unilaterally suspended all talks in January 1986, arguing that the annual U.S.-ROK "Team Spirit" military exercise was inconsistent with dialogue. There was a brief flurry of negotiations that year on co-hosting the upcoming 1988 Seoul Olympics, which ended in failure and was followed by the 1987 bombing of a South Korean commercial aircraft (KAL 858) by North Korean agents.

In July 1988, South Korean President Roh Tae-woo called for new efforts to promote North-South exchanges, family reunification, inter-Korean trade, and contact in international forums. Roh followed up this initiative in a UN General Assembly speech in which South Korea offered for the first time to discuss security matters with the North. Initial meetings that grew out of Roh's proposals started in September 1989. In September 1990, the first of eight prime minister-level meetings between North Korean and South Korean officials took place in Seoul. The prime ministerial talks resulted in two major agreements: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression, Exchanges, and Cooperation (the "Basic Agreement") and the Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (the "Joint Declaration").

The Basic Agreement, signed on December 13, 1991, called for reconciliation and nonaggression and established four joint commissions. These commissions--on South-North reconciliation, South-North military affairs, South-North economic exchanges and cooperation, and South-North social and cultural exchange--were to work out the specifics for implementing the basic agreement. Subcommittees to examine specific issues were created, and liaison offices were established in Panmunjom, but in the fall of 1992 the process came to a halt because of rising tension over North Korea's nuclear program.

The Joint Declaration on denuclearization was initialized on December 31, 1991. It forbade both sides from testing, manufacturing, producing, receiving, possessing, storing, deploying, or using nuclear weapons and forbade the possession of nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities. A procedure for inter-Korean inspection was to be organized and a North-South Joint Nuclear Control Commission (JNCC) was mandated to verify the denuclearization of the peninsula.

On January 30, 1992, the D.P.R.K. finally signed a nuclear safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as it had pledged to do in 1985 when it acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This safeguards agreement allowed IAEA inspections to begin in June 1992. In March 1992, the JNCC was established in accordance with the Joint Declaration, but subsequent meetings failed to reach agreement on the main issue of establishing a bilateral inspection regime.

As the 1990s progressed, concern over the North's nuclear program became a major issue in North-South relations and between North Korea and the United States. The lack of progress on implementation of the Joint Declaration's provision for an inter-Korean nuclear inspection regime led to reinstatement of the U.S.-R.O.K. Team Spirit military exercise for 1993. The situation worsened rapidly when North Korea, in January 1993, refused IAEA access to two suspected nuclear waste sites and then announced in March 1993 its intent to withdraw from the NPT. During the next two years, the United States held direct talks with the D.P.R.K. that resulted in a series of agreements on nuclear matters, including the 1994 Agreed Framework (which broke down in 2002 when North Korea was discovered to be pursuing a uranium enrichment program for nuclear weapons--see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

At his inauguration in February 1998, R.O.K. President Kim Dae-jung enunciated a new policy of engagement with the D.P.R.K., dubbed "the Sunshine Policy." The policy had three fundamental principles: no tolerance of provocations from the North, no intention to absorb the North, and the separation of political cooperation from economic cooperation. Private sector overtures would be based on commercial and humanitarian considerations. The use of government resources would entail reciprocity. This policy set the stage for the first inter-Korean summit, held in Pyongyang June 13-15, 2000.

R.O.K. President Roh Moo-hyun, following his inauguration in February 2003, has continued his predecessor's policy of engagement with the North, though he abandoned the name "Sunshine Policy." The United States supports President Roh's engagement policy and North-South dialogue and cooperation. Major economic reunification projects have included a tourism development in Mt. Geumgang, the re-establishment of road and rail links across the demilitarized zone (DMZ) and a joint North-South industrial park near the North Korean city of Kaesong (see further information below in the section on the Economy). In August 2007, the R.O.K. and D.P.R.K. announced plans to hold a second inter-Korean summit, scheduled for October 2-4 in Pyongyang.

===Relations Outside the Korean Peninsula===
Throughout the Cold War, North Korea balanced its relations with China and the Soviet Union to extract the maximum benefit from the relationships at minimum political cost. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, the Soviet-backed Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan created strains between China and the Soviet Union and, in turn, in North Korea's relations with its two major communist allies. North Korea tried to avoid becoming embroiled in the Sino-Soviet split, obtaining aid from both the Soviet Union and China and trying to avoid dependence on either. Following Kim Il-sung's 1984 visit to Moscow, there was an improvement in Soviet-D.P.R.K. relations, resulting in renewed deliveries of Soviet weaponry to North Korea and increases in economic aid.

The establishment of diplomatic relations by South Korea with the Soviet Union in 1990 and with China in 1992 seriously strained relations between North Korea and its traditional allies. Moreover, the fall of communism in eastern Europe in 1989 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 resulted in a significant drop in communist aid to North Korea. Despite these changes and its past reliance on this military and economic assistance, North Korea continued to proclaim a militantly independent stance in its foreign policy in accordance with its official ideology of "juche," or self-reliance.

Both North and South Korea became parties to the Biological Weapons Convention in 1987. (North Korea is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention, nor is it a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime, or MTCR.)

North Korea has maintained membership in some multilateral organizations. It became a member of the UN in September 1991. North Korea also belongs to the Food and Agriculture Organization; the International Civil Aviation Organization; the International Postal Union; the UN Conference on Trade and Development; the International Telecommunications Union; the UN Development Program; the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization; the World Health Organization; the World Intellectual Property Organization; the World Meteorological Organization; the International Maritime Organization; the International Committee of the Red Cross; and the Nonaligned Movement.

In the mid-1990s, when the economic situation worsened dramatically and following the death of D.P.R.K. founder Kim Il-sung, the North abandoned some of the more extreme manifestations of its "self reliance" ideology to accept foreign humanitarian relief and create the possibility, as noted below, for foreign investment in the North. In subsequent years, the D.P.R.K. has continued to pursue a tightly restricted policy of opening to the world in search of economic aid and development assistance. However, this has been matched by an increased determination to counter perceived external and internal threats by a self-proclaimed "military first" ("Songun") policy.

During the present period of limited, extremely cautious opening, North Korea has sought to broaden its formal diplomatic relationships. In July 2000, North Korea began participating in the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), with Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun attending the ARF ministerial meeting in Bangkok. The D.P.R.K. also expanded its bilateral diplomatic ties in that year, establishing diplomatic relations with Italy, Australia, the Philippines, Australia, Canada, the U.K., Germany, and many other European countries.

In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement issued at the end of the fourth round of Six-Party Talks, the United States and the D.P.R.K. committed to undertake steps to normalize relations (see below, Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula). The D.P.R.K. and Japan also agreed to take steps to normalize relations and to discuss outstanding issues of concern, such as abductions. The U.S.-D.P.R.K. and Japan-D.P.R.K. bilateral working groups on normalization of relations met in March and September 2007.

====Terrorism====
The D.P.R.K. is not known to have sponsored terrorist acts since the 1987 bombing of KAL flight 858. Pyongyang continues to provide sanctuary to members of the Japanese Communist League-Red Army Faction (JRA) who participated in the hijacking of a Japan Airlines flight to North Korea in 1970.

The D.P.R.K. has made several statements condemning terrorism. In October 2000, the United States and the D.P.R.K. issued a joint statement on terrorism in which "the two sides agreed that international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global security and peace, and that terrorism should be opposed in all its forms." The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to support the international legal regime combating international terrorism and to cooperate with each other to fight terrorism. The D.P.R.K. became a signatory to the Convention for the Suppression of Financing of Terrorism and a party to the Convention Against the Taking of Hostages in November 2001. In the February 13, 2007 Initial Actions agreement, the [[United States of America]] agreed to begin the process of removing the designation of the D.P.R.K. as a state sponsor of terrorism. On Saturday October 11, 2008. The United States officially removed North Korea from the Terrorism Watch List. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,436382,00.html North Korea no longer a recognized Terrorist sponsor.]</ref>

====Abductions====
In the past, the D.P.R.K. has also been involved in the abduction of foreign citizens. In 2002, Kim Jong-il acknowledged to Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi the involvement of D.P.R.K. "special institutions" in the kidnapping of Japanese citizens between 1977 and 1983 and said that those responsible had been punished. While five surviving victims and their families were allowed to leave the D.P.R.K. and resettle in Japan in October 2002, 12 other cases remain unresolved and continue to be a major issue in D.P.R.K.-Japanese relations. In October 2005, the D.P.R.K. acknowledged for the first time having kidnapped R.O.K. citizens in previous decades, claiming that several abductees, as well as several POWs from the Korean War, were still alive. In June 2006, North Korea allowed Kim Young-nam, a South Korean abducted by the North in 1978, to participate in a family reunion.

In 2001, a series of articles in foreign and Russian Federation newspapers, resting on reports from Russian Federation human rights activists and Amnesty International and the New York based Human Rights Watch alleged the D.P.R.K. abduction of up to 30,000 North Korean dissidents as well as common citizens to work in the Siberian labor and forestry camps in a scheme to pay off billions owed by North Korea to the Russia of both Soviet and Federation times. This forced labor was similar in nature and form to the gulags of Soviet Russia (see [[KAL 007 Survivors and Gulags of Russia]]).

===United States policy towards North Korea===
====U.S. Support for North-South Dialogue and Reunification====
The United States supports the peaceful reunification of Korea on terms acceptable to the Korean people and recognizes that the future of the Korean Peninsula is primarily a matter for them to decide. The United States believes that a constructive and serious dialogue between the authorities of North and South Korea is necessary to resolve outstanding problems, including the North's nuclear program and human rights abuses, and to encourage the North's integration with the rest of the international community.

====Efforts to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula====
[[File:DPKR camps and nukes.png|right|200px|thumb|Locations of major hard-labor/re-education camps where the inmate population exceeds 20,000 each, nuclear-related facilities, and the test bomb site]]
North Korea joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as a non-nuclear weapons state in 1985. North and South Korean talks begun in 1990 resulted in the 1992 Joint Declaration for a Non-Nuclear Korean Peninsula (see, under Foreign Relations, Reunification Efforts Since 1971). However, the international standoff over the North's failure to implement an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency for the inspection of the North's nuclear facilities led Pyongyang to announce in March 1993 its intention to withdraw from the NPT. A UN Security Council Resolution in May 1993 urged the D.P.R.K. to cooperate with the IAEA and to implement the 1992 North-South Denuclearization Statement. It also urged all UN Member States to encourage the D.P.R.K. to respond positively to this resolution and to facilitate a solution to the nuclear issue.

The United States opened talks with the D.P.R.K. in June 1993 and eventually reached agreement in October 1994 on a diplomatic roadmap, known as the Agreed Framework, for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The Agreed Framework called for the following steps:
*North Korea agreed to freeze its existing nuclear program and allow monitoring by the IAEA.
*Both sides agreed to cooperate to replace the D.P.R.K.'s graphite-moderated reactors with light-water reactor (LWR) power plants, by a target date of 2003, to be financed and supplied by an international consortium (later identified as the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization or KEDO).
*As an interim measure, the United States agreed to provide North Korea with 500,000 tons of heavy fuel oil annually until the first reactor was built.
*The United States and D.P.R.K. agreed to work together to store safely the spent fuel from the five-megawatt reactor and dispose of it in a safe manner that did not involve reprocessing in the D.P.R.K.
*The two sides agreed to move toward full normalization of political and economic relations.
*The two sides agreed to work together for peace and security on a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
*The two sides agreed to work together to strengthen the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.
In accordance with the terms of the Agreed Framework, in January 1995 the U.S. Government eased economic sanctions against North Korea in response to North Korea's freezing its graphite-moderated nuclear program under United States and IAEA verification. North Korea agreed to accept the decisions of KEDO, the financier and supplier of the LWRs, with respect to provision of the reactors. KEDO subsequently identified Sinpo as the LWR project site and held a groundbreaking ceremony in August 1997. In December 1999, KEDO and the (South) Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) signed the Turnkey Contract (TKC), permitting full-scale construction of the LWRs.

In January 1995, as called for in the 1994 Agreed Framework, the United States and D.P.R.K. negotiated a method to store safely the spent fuel from the D.P.R.K.'s five-megawatt nuclear reactor. Under this method, United States and D.P.R.K. operators worked together to can the spent fuel and store the canisters in a spent fuel pond; canning began in 1995. In April 2000, canning of all accessible spent fuel rods and rod fragments was completed.

In 1998, the United States identified an underground site in Kumchang-ni, North Korea, which it suspected of being nuclear-related. In March 1999, after several rounds of negotiations, the United States and D.P.R.K. agreed that the United States would be granted "satisfactory access" to the underground site at Kumchang-ni. In October 2000, during D.P.R.K. Special Envoy Marshal Jo Myong-rok's visit to Washington, and after two visits to the site by teams of U.S. experts, the United States announced in a Joint Communiqué with the D.P.R.K. that U.S. concerns about the site had been resolved.

As called for in former Defense Secretary William Perry's official review of U.S. policy toward North Korea, the United States and the D.P.R.K. launched Agreed Framework Implementation Talks in May 2000 The United States and the D.P.R.K. also began negotiations for a comprehensive missile agreement, pursuant to the Perry recommendations.

In January 2001, the Bush Administration discontinued nuclear and missile talks, specifying that it intended to review the United States' North Korea policy. The Administration announced on June 6, 2001, that it was prepared to resume dialogue with North Korea on a broader agenda of issues--including North Korea's conventional force posture, missile development and export programs, human rights practices, and humanitarian issues.

In October 2002, a U.S. delegation confronted North Korea with the assessment that the D.P.R.K. was pursuing a uranium enrichment program, in violation of North Korea's obligations under the NPT and its commitments in the 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the Agreed Framework. North Korean officials asserted to the U.S. delegation, headed by then-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James A. Kelly, the D.P.R.K.'s "right" to a uranium enrichment program and indicated that that it had such a program. The U.S. side stated that North Korea would have to terminate the program before any further progress could be made in U.S.-D.P.R.K. relations. The United States also made clear that if this program were verifiably eliminated, it would be prepared to work with North Korea on the development of a fundamentally new relationship. Subsequently, the D.P.R.K. has denied the existence of a uranium enrichment program. In November 2002, the member countries of KEDO's Executive Board agreed to suspend heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea pending a resolution of the nuclear dispute.

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea terminated the freeze on its existing plutonium-based nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, expelled IAEA inspectors, removed seals and monitoring equipment at Yongbyon, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and resumed reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to extract plutonium for weapons purposes. North Korea announced that it was taking these steps to provide itself with a deterrent force in the face of U.S. threats and U.S. "hostile policy." Beginning in mid-2003, the North repeatedly claimed to have completed reprocessing of the spent fuel rods previously frozen at Yongbyon and publicly said that the resulting fissile material would be used to bolster its "nuclear deterrent force." There is no independent confirmation of North Korea's claims. The KEDO Executive Board suspended work on the LWR Project beginning December 1, 2003.

President Bush has made clear that the United States has no intention to invade or attack North Korea. The President has also stressed that the United States seeks a peaceful end to North Korea's nuclear program in cooperation with North Korea's neighbors, who are directly affected by the threat the nuclear program poses to regional stability and security.

In early 2003, the United States proposed multilateral talks on the North Korean nuclear issue. North Korea initially opposed such a process, maintaining that the nuclear dispute was purely a bilateral matter between the United States and the D.P.R.K. However, under pressure from its neighbors and with the active involvement of China, North Korea agreed to three-party talks with China and the United States in Beijing in April 2003 and to Six-Party Talks with the United States, China, R.O.K., Japan and Russia in August 2003, also in Beijing. During the August 2003 round of Six-Party Talks, North Korea agreed to the eventual elimination of its nuclear programs if the United States were first willing to sign a bilateral "non-aggression treaty" and meet various other conditions, including the provision of substantial amounts of aid and normalization of relations. The North Korean proposal was unacceptable to the United States, which insisted on a multilateral resolution to the issue and opposed provision of benefits before the D.P.R.K.'s complete denuclearization. In October 2003, President Bush said he would consider a multilateral written security guarantee in the context of North Korea's complete, verifiable, and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons program.

China hosted a second round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing in February 2004. The United States saw the results as positive, including the announced intention of all parties to hold a third round by the end of June and to form a working group to maintain momentum between plenary sessions.

At the third round of Six-Party Talks in Beijing, in June 2004, the United States tabled a comprehensive and substantive proposal aimed at resolving the nuclear issue. All parties agreed to hold a fourth round of talks by the end of September 2004. Despite its commitment, the D.P.R.K. refused to return to the table, and in the months that followed issued a series of provocative statements. In a February 10, 2005, Foreign Ministry statement, the D.P.R.K. declared that it had "manufactured nuclear weapons" and was "indefinitely suspending" its participation in the Six-Party Talks. In Foreign Ministry statements in March, the D.P.R.K. said it would no longer be bound by its voluntary moratorium on ballistic missile launches, and declared itself a nuclear weapons state.

Following intense diplomatic efforts by the United States and other parties, the fourth round of Six-Party Talks were held in Beijing over a period of 20 days from July-September 2005, with a recess period in August. Discussions resulted in all parties agreeing to a Joint Statement of Principles. In the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement, the six parties unanimously reaffirmed the goal of verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. The D.P.R.K. for the first time committed to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and to return, at an early date, to the NPT and to IAEA safeguards. The other parties agreed to provide economic cooperation and energy assistance. The United States and the D.P.R.K. agreed to take steps to normalize relations subject to bilateral policies, which for the United States includes our concerns over North Korea's ballistic missile programs and deplorable human rights conditions. While the Joint Statement provides a vision of the end-point of the Six-Party process, much work lies ahead to implement the elements of the agreement.

A fifth round of talks began in November 2005, but ended inconclusively as the D.P.R.K. began a boycott of the Six-Party Talks, citing the "U.S.' hostile policy" and specifically U.S. law enforcement action that had led in September to a freeze of North Korean accounts in Macau's Banco Delta Asia (BDA). The United States held discussions in Kuala Lumpur (July 2006) and New York in (September 2006) with other Six-Party partners, except North Korea, along with representatives from other regional powers in the Asia-Pacific region, to discuss Northeast Asian security issues, including North Korea. On July 4-5, 2006 (local Korea time), the D.P.R.K. launched seven ballistic missiles, including six short- and medium-range missiles and one of possible intercontinental range. In response, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1695 on July 15, which demands that the D.P.R.K. suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program and reestablish existing commitments to a moratorium on missile launching. The resolution also requires all UN Member States, in accordance with their national legal authorities and consistent with international law, to exercise vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and technology from being transferred to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, prevent the procurement of missiles or related items, materials, goods and services from the D.P.R.K., and the transfer of any financial resources in relation to the D.P.R.K.'s missile or WMD programs. The D.P.R.K. immediately rejected the resolution.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced the successful test of a nuclear explosive device, verified by the United States on October 11. In response, the United Nations Security Council, citing Chapter VII of the UN Charter, unanimously passed Resolution 1718, condemning North Korea and imposing sanctions on certain luxury goods and trade of military units, WMD and missile-related parts, and technology transfers. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6032525.stm</ref>

The Six-Party Talks resumed in December 2006 after a 13-month hiatus. Following a bilateral meeting between the United States and D.P.R.K. in Berlin in January 2007, another round of Six-Party Talks was held in February 2007. On February 13, 2007, the parties reached an agreement on "Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement" in which North Korea agreed to shut down and seal its Yongbyon nuclear facility, including the reprocessing facility and to invite back IAEA personnel to conduct all necessary monitoring and verification of these actions as agreed between the IAEA and the D.P.R.K. The other five parties agreed to provide emergency energy assistance to North Korea in the amount of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) in the initial phase and the equivalent of 950,000 tons of HFO in the next phase of North Korea's denuclearization. The six parties also established five working groups to form specific plans for implementing the Joint Statement in the following areas: denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, normalization of D.P.R.K.-U.S. relations, normalization of D.P.R.K.-Japan relations, economic and energy cooperation, and a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism. All parties agreed that the working groups would meet within 30 days of the agreement, which they did. The agreement also envisions the directly-related parties negotiating a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum. As part of the initial actions, North Korea invited IAEA Director General ElBaradei to Pyongyang in early March for preliminary discussions on the return of the IAEA to the D.P.R.K.

The sixth round of Six-Party Talks took place on March 19-23, 2007. The parties reported on the first meetings of the five working groups. At the invitation of the D.P.R.K., Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang in June 2007 as part of ongoing consultations with the six parties on implementation of the Initial Actions agreement. In July 2007, the D.P.R.K. shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility, as well as an uncompleted reactor at Taechon, and IAEA personnel returned to the D.P.R.K. to monitor and verify the shut-down and to seal the facility. In July 2007, the R.O.K. provided the first shipment of 50,000 tons of HFO under the Initial Actions agreement. The Six-Party Heads of Delegation met July 18-20, 2007 to discuss implementation of the D.P.R.K.'s next phase commitments, including the D.P.R.K.'s provision of a complete declaration of all nuclear programs and disablement of existing nuclear facilities. All five working groups met in August and September to discuss detailed plans for implementation of the next phase of the Initial Actions agreement, and will report the results of those discussions to the next Six-Party plenary meeting. As part of the denuclearization process, the D.P.R.K. invited a team of experts from the United States, China, and Russia to visit the Yongbyon nuclear facility in September 2007 to discuss specific steps that could be taken to disable the facility.

==Military==

Although North Korea has no enemies, its government says it needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against "the U.S. nuclear threat".<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_as/as_nkorea_parliament North Korea denounces new Obama nuclear strategy]"</ref>

North Korea now has the fourth-largest army in the world. It has an estimated 1.21 million armed personnel, compared to about 680,000 in the South. Military spending is estimated at as much as a quarter of GNP, with about 20% of men ages 17-54 in the regular armed forces. North Korean forces have a substantial numerical advantage over the South (between 2 and 3 to 1) in several key categories of offensive weapons--tanks, long-range artillery, and armored personnel carriers. The North has perhaps the world's second-largest special operations force, designed for insertion behind the lines in wartime. While the North has a relatively impressive fleet of submarines, its surface fleet has a very limited capability. Its air force has twice the number of aircraft as the South, but, except for a few advanced fighters, the North's air force is obsolete.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/air-force-equipment.htm North Korea Air Force Equipment]</ref> The North deploys the bulk of its forces well forward, along the demilitarized zone (DMZ). Several North Korean military tunnels under the DMZ were discovered in the 1970s.

Over the last several years, North Korea has moved more of its rear-echelon troops to hardened bunkers closer to the DMZ. Given the proximity of Seoul to the DMZ (some 25 miles), South Korean and U.S. forces are likely to have little warning of any attack. The United States and South Korea continue to believe that the U.S. troop presence in South Korea remains an effective deterrent. North Korea's nuclear weapons program has also been a source of international tension (see below, Reunification Efforts Since 1971; Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula).

In 1953, the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) was created to oversee and enforce the terms of the armistice. Over the past decade, North Korea has sought to dismantle the MAC in a push for a new "peace mechanism" on the peninsula. In April 1994, it declared the MAC void and withdrew its representatives.

==Economy==
North Korea's economy declined sharply in the 1990s with the end of communism in Eastern Europe, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of bloc-trading with the countries of the former socialist bloc. Gross national income per capita is estimated to have fallen by about one-third between 1990 and 2002. The economy has since stabilized and shown some modest growth in recent years, which may be reflective of increased inter-Korean economic cooperation. Output and living standards, however, remain far below 1990 levels. Other centrally-planned economies in similar situations opted for domestic economic reform and liberalization of trade and investment. North Korea formalized some modest wage and price reforms in 2002, and has increasingly tolerated markets and a small private sector as the state-run distribution system has deteriorated. The regime, however, seems determined to maintain control. In October 2005, emboldened by an improved harvest and increased food donations from South Korea, the North Korean Government banned private grain sales and announced a return to centralized food rationing. Reports indicate this effort to reassert state control and to control inflation has been largely ineffective. Another factor contributing to the economy's poor performance is the disproportionately large share of GDP (thought to be about one-fourth) that North Korea devotes to its military.

North Korean industry is operating at only a small fraction of capacity due to lack of fuel, spare parts, and other inputs. Agriculture is now 30% of GDP, even though agricultural output has not recovered to early 1990 levels. The infrastructure is generally poor and outdated, and the energy sector has collapsed. About 80% of North Korea's terrain consists of moderately high mountain ranges and partially forested mountains and hills separated by deep, narrow valleys and small, cultivated plains. The most rugged areas are the north and east coasts. Good harbors are found on the eastern coast. Pyongyang, the capital, near the country's west coast, is located on the Taedong River.
*GNI (2004 estimate): $20.8 billion; 26.7% in agriculture and fishery, 27.2% in mining, 13.7% in manufacturing, 32.3% in services (2004).
*Per capita GNI (2004): $914.
*Agriculture: Products--[[rice]], [[potato]]es, [[soybean]]s, [[cattle]], [[pig]]s, [[pork]] and [[egg]]s.
*Mining and manufacturing: Types--military products; machine building; chemicals; mining (gold, coal, iron ore, limestone, magnesite, etc.); metallurgy; textiles; food processing; tourism.
*Trade (2006): Exports--$1.47 billion: minerals, non-ferrous metals, garments, machinery, electric and electronic products, chemicals, precious metals, wood products, and shellfish products. The D.P.R.K. is also thought to earn hundreds of millions of dollars from the unreported sale of missiles, narcotics and counterfeit cigarettes, and other illicit activities. Imports--$2.88 billion: minerals, petroleum, machinery, textiles, chemicals, non-ferrous metals, and animal products.
*Major trading partners (2006): (1) China, (2) R.O.K., (3) Thailand, (4) Russia and (5) Japan.

North Korea experienced a severe famine following record floods in the summer of 1995 and continues to suffer from chronic food shortages and malnutrition. The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) provided substantial emergency food assistance beginning in 1995 (2 million tons of which came from the United States), but the North Korean Government suspended the WFP emergency program at the end of 2005. It has since permitted the WFP to resume operations on a greatly reduced scale through a Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation. External food aid now comes primarily from China and South Korea in the form of grants and long-term concessional loans. South Korea also donates fertilizer and other materials, while China provides energy. South Korea suspended food and fertilizer shipments to the North in response to North Korea's missile launches in July 2006. However, when severe floods later that month threatened to produce another humanitarian crisis, South Korea announced a one-time donation of 100,000 tons of food, matching contributions from South Korean non-governmental organizations (NGOs). South Korea resumed fertilizer shipments to North Korea in late March 2007. In early July, South Korea announced that it would provide $20 million worth of food assistance to the D.P.R.K. through the World Food Program. South Korea also resumed bilateral food aid in June 2007. Following severe flooding in North Korea in August 2007, South Korea announced that it would provide $7.5 million worth of emergency aid materials to North Korea, and $3.2 million to NGOs providing flood assistance in North Korea. The R.O.K. also provided $39.4 million in construction materials to the D.P.R.K. to assist with reconstruction efforts following the floods. The United States provided $100,000 to two U.S. NGOs for antibiotics in the wake of the floods. The United States also announced that is was prepared to engage in discussions with the D.P.R.K. of monitoring arrangements to provide additional substantial humanitarian assistance, including food aid, to the country.

====Development Policy====
In 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and termination of subsidized trade arrangements with Russia, other former Communist states, and China, North Korea announced the creation of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the northeast regions of Najin (sometime rendered "Rajin"), Chongjin, and Sonbong. Problems with infrastructure, bureaucracy, and uncertainties about investment security and viability have hindered growth and development of this SEZ. The government announced in 2002 plans to establish a Special Administrative Region (SAR) in Sinuiju, at the western end of the North Korea-China border. However, the government has taken few concrete steps to establish the Sinuiju SAR, and its future is uncertain. In addition, North Korea and South Korea have established a special economic zone near the city of Kaesong, where about 20 South Korean companies operate manufacturing facilities employing North Korean workers (see further information under North-South Economic Ties).

North Korea implemented limited micro- and macroeconomic reforms in 2002, including increases in prices and wages, changes in foreign investment laws, a steep currency devaluation, and reforms in industry and management. Though the changes have failed to stimulate recovery of the industrial sector, there are reports of changed economic behavior at the enterprise and individual level. One unintended consequence of the 2002 changes has been severe inflation. An increasing number of North Koreans now try to work in the informal sector to cope with growing hardship and reduced government support.

====North-South Economic Ties====
Two-way trade between North and South Korea, legalized in 1988, had risen to more than $1 billion by 2005, much of it related to out-processing or assembly work undertaken by South Korean firms in the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC). A significant portion of the total also includes donated goods provided to the North as humanitarian assistance or as part of inter-Korean cooperation projects. Although business-based and processing-on-commission transactions continued to grow, the bulk of South Korean exports to North Korea in 2006 was still non-commercial.

Since the June 2000 North-South summit, North and South Korea have reconnected their east and west coast railroads and roads where they cross the DMZ and are working to improve these transportation routes. North and South Korea conducted tests of the east and west coast railroads on May 17, 2007. Much of the work done in North Korea has been funded by the South. The west coast rail and road are complete as far north as the KIC (six miles north of the DMZ), but little work is being done north of Kaesong. On the east coast, the road is complete but the rail line is far from operational. Since 2003, tour groups have been using the east coast road to travel from South Korea to Mt. Geumgang in North Korea, where cruise ship-based tours had been permitted since 1998.

As of August 2007, 26 South Korean firms were manufacturing goods in the KIC, employing nearly 17,000 North Korean workers. Most of the goods are sold in South Korea; a small quantity is being exported to foreign markets. Ground was broken on the complex in June 2003, and the first products were shipped from the KIC in December 2004. Plans envision 250 firms employing 350,000 workers by 2012.

==History==
The Korean Peninsula was first populated by peoples of a Tungusic branch of the Ural-Altaic language family, who migrated from the northwestern regions of Asia. Some of these peoples also populated parts of northeast China (Manchuria); Koreans and Manchurians still show physical similarities. Koreans are racially and linguistically homogeneous. Although there are no indigenous minorities in North Korea, there is a small Chinese community (about 50,000) and some 1,800 Japanese wives who accompanied the roughly 93,000 Koreans returning to the North from Japan between 1959 and 1962. Although dialects exist, the Korean spoken throughout the peninsula is mutually comprehensible. In North Korea, the Korean alphabet (hangul) is used exclusively.

Korea's traditional religions are Buddhism and Shamanism. Christian missionaries arrived as early as the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that major missionary activity began. Pyongyang was a center of missionary activity, and there was a relatively large Christian population in the north before 1945. Although religious groups exist in North Korea today, the government severely restricts religious activity.

By the first century AD, the Korean Peninsula was divided into the kingdoms of Shilla, Koguryo, and Paekche. In 668 AD, the Shilla kingdom unified the peninsula. The Koryo dynasty--from which Portuguese missionaries in the 16th century derived the Western name "Korea"--succeeded the Shilla kingdom in 935. The Choson dynasty, ruled by members of the Yi clan, supplanted Koryo in 1392 and lasted until Japan annexed Korea in 1910.

Throughout its history, Korea has been invaded, influenced, and fought over by its larger neighbors. Korea was under Mongolian occupation from 1231 until the early 14th century. The unifier of Japan, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, launched major invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597. When Western powers focused "gunboat" diplomacy on Korea in the mid-19th century, Korea's rulers adopted a closed-door policy, earning Korea the title of "Hermit Kingdom." Though the Choson dynasty recognized China's hegemony in East Asia, Korea was independent until the late 19th century. At that time, China sought to block growing Japanese influence on the Korean Peninsula and Russian pressure for commercial gains there. The competition produced the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 and the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05. Japan emerged victorious from both wars and in 1910 annexed Korea as part of the growing Japanese empire. Japanese colonial administration was characterized by tight control from Tokyo and ruthless efforts to supplant Korean language and culture. Organized Korean resistance during the colonial era was generally unsuccessful, and Japan remained firmly in control of the Peninsula until the end of World War II in 1945. The surrender of Japan in August 1945 led to the immediate division of Korea into two occupation zones, with the United States administering the southern half of the peninsula and the U.S.S.R. taking over the area to the north of the 38th parallel. This division was meant to be temporary until the United States, U.K., Soviet Union, and China could arrange a trusteeship administration.

In December 1945, a conference was convened in Moscow to discuss the future of Korea. A five-year trusteeship was discussed, and a joint Soviet-American commission was established. The commission met intermittently in Seoul but deadlocked over the issue of establishing a national government. In September 1947, with no solution in sight, the United States submitted the Korean question to the UN General Assembly. Initial hopes for a unified, independent Korea quickly evaporated as the politics of the Cold War and domestic opposition to the trusteeship plan resulted in the 1948 establishment of two separate nations with diametrically opposed political, economic, and social systems. Elections were held in the South under UN observation, and on August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea (R.O.K.) was established in the South. Syngman Rhee, a nationalist leader, became the Republic's first president. On September 9, 1948, the North established the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (D.P.R.K.) headed by then-Premier Kim Il-sung, who had been cultivated and supported by the U.S.S.R.

Soviet supervision over the setting up and initial administration of the North Korean government was vested in a Soviet Civil Administration Bureau which carried out policies formulated in the Politburo and passed down through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Political Administration Department of the Sovie [[Red Army]]. Through ministrations of this agency, a veritable flood of Soviet advisors permeated the governmental, economic, social and educational structures of North Korea. Although outwardly maintaining an advisory status, Soviet advisors, in fact, exercised control and supervision over all policy matters. In this manner the USSR created a satellite state which was politically subservient and subject to economic manipulation.

By 1949 nationalization of banking, heavy industry and communications, the agrarian [[redistribution]] program and the political monopoly of unions had taken place and the new regime demonstrated a willingness to lower the standard of living of its people by exporting vitally needed foodstuffs and raw materials in order to obtain the instruments of war.

====Korean War of 1950-53====
:''Main article: '''[[Korean War]]'''''
Almost immediately after establishment of the D.P.R.K., guerrilla warfare, border clashes, and naval battles erupted between the two Koreas. North Korean forces launched a massive surprise attack and invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950. The United Nations, in accordance with the terms of its Charter, engaged in its first collective action and established the UN Command (UNC), to which 16 member nations sent troops and assistance. Next to South Korea, the United States contributed the largest contingent of forces to this international effort.

North Korean forces quickly overran Southern ones, capturing almost the entire peninsula save the southern city of Busan. To relieve the Busan perimeter, U.S. General [[Douglas MacArthur]] led a massive amphibious landing at Inchon, over 100 miles behind the North Korean flanks. Kim's forces were pushed back and the battle line fluctuated north and south, and after large numbers of Chinese "People's Volunteers" intervened to assist the North, the battle line stabilized north of Seoul near the 38th parallel.

Armistice negotiations began in July 1951, but hostilities continued until July 27, 1953. On that date, at Panmunjom, the military commanders of the North Korean People's Army, the Chinese People's Volunteers, and the UNC signed an armistice agreement. Neither the United States nor South Korea is a signatory to the armistice per se, although both adhere to it through the UNC. No comprehensive peace agreement has replaced the 1953 armistice pact.

====Atrocities of the Korean War====
[[Fred Schwarz]] wrote:
:''When the Communists retreated in North Korea, they took with them all the able-bodied personnel to serve as laborers. Those who could not stand the rigors of the northward journey-- old men and women, pregnant women, very young children and babies-- they massacred and buried in a [[mass grave]] if they belonged to the untrustworthy social classes. The advancing American troops time and again found mass graves filled with the bodies of those murdered by the Communists.''<ref> [http://www.schwarzreport.org/yct/01ycttc.htm You Can Trust the Communists - To Be Communists]
</ref>

==Books==
*''The Aquariums of Pyong Yang'' by Kang Chol-hwan
*''Eyes of the Tailless Animals'' (1999) by Soon Ok Lee
*''North Korea'' by Bruce Cuming
*[http://www.time.com/time/columnist/arnold/article/0,9565,1108801,00.html ''Pyongyang: A Journey in North Korea''] (graphic novel) by Guy Deslisle
*[http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/124221.Don_Oberdorfer ''The Two Koreas''] by Don Oberdorfer

== See also ==

*[[Asian painting]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ6E3cShcVU Documentary on current conditions in North Korea]
*[http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/korea_north/index.html Korea, North - 2007] Geographic.org
*[http://www.worldchristianministries.org/idop/idop3.asp Testimony of a high-ranking defector]
*[http://bertschlossberg.blogspot.com/ An Open Secret: the Gulags of the Russian Federation (the North Korean camps on Russian territory)]

== References ==
<references/>

{{Copyright Details (US Government)}}
source= [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2792.htm]
{{Asian Countries}}
[[Category:Dictatorships]]
[[Category:Communist States]]
[[Category:Korea]]

Marijuana

2013-06-09T19:40:38Z

Ryancsh: Undo revision 1055578 by TheTruthIsHere (talk) Another Pardoy, The truth is here is obviously a parodist

[[Image:Marijuana.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Indoor Marijuana Grow (DEA photo)]]
'''Marijuana''' (colloquially known as '''"weed"''' or '''"pot"''') is the name given to the flowering buds of the cannabis sativa plant prepared for human consumption. The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, an [[organic chemistry|organic chemical]] compound. Marijuana is harmful and generally illegal to possess, cultivate and sell in most countries, although it is legal in a few liberal jurisdictions if prescribed as medication by a physician.<ref>The sale of marijuana is illegal virtually everywhere in the world, and results in long prison sentences in many places. In Portugal, Argentina, California and South Australia, the use (rather than the sale) of small quantities of marijuana is allowed. In only one country in the world, the Netherlands, the sale of marijuana in small quantities is reportedly allowed by law enforcement.</ref>

The [[liberal media]] typically downplay or completely ignore the role of marijuana in mass killings, horrific accidents, and other types of harm to innocent people victimized by users of the drug. For example, authorities conceal from the public how much marijuana was in the system of "College Weed Dealer" [[Young Mass Murderers|Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]] when he went on his alleged killing rampage.<ref>http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-dealing-drugs/64529/</ref>

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, psychosis in predisposed individuals as well as impairment of physical and mental functioning. Some research has found that cannabis has medicinal benefits (see [[Medical marijuana]]); however many contest this, and state that there are numerous federally approved medicines for the diseases that medicinal marijuana can be used to treat.

==Medicinal Harms==
Marijuana contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco, thus when smoked it has the same harmful effects including: potential damage to DNA, cancer, respiratory diseases associated with smoke inhilation, and impaired immune system.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm Science Daily 6/9/2009]</ref>. However, these effects have not been linked directly to alternate methods of marijuana use. Marijuana use can impair short term memory while intoxicated. THC has slight negative affects on long term memory and thus, in chronic users (approximately 1g/24Hrs)<ref>[http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/20_mens_health.html AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana]</ref>, complications with long term memory are a risk. If smoked, marijuana leads to a temporary increase in heart rate and blood pressure while intoxicated. For this reason, there is a slight increase in the risk for heart related problems including heart attack during the time of intoxication<ref>[http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/20_mens_health.html AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana]</ref>. Chronic smokers often suffer from mild withdrawal symptoms, however marijuana is not physically addictive.<ref>[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive Psychology Today: Is Marijuana Addictive?]</ref>. Marijuana can impair judgment, motor skills, and balance <ref>[http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm]</ref>. Marijuana has also been linked to impaired learning and developmental diability in unborn children <ref>[http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n10/full/1301068a.html Neuropsycopharmacology: High-Potency Marijuana Impairs Executive Function and Inhibitory Motor Control]</ref>

==Medicinal Benefits==
The active ingredient in marijuana, [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], has been shown (in studies) to produce certain psychological and medicinal benefits. Marijuana has been used to treat anorexia and has been used as an antiemetic.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana National Cancer Institute]</ref> Harvard University conducted a study on the effect of Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on certain lung cancers. The result of the test was that THC can reduce tumor size by as much as half.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm Science Daily 4/7/2007]</ref> In addition to a significant reduction in tumor size, there was a reduction in lesions on the lungs by 60%, and a reduction in protein markers associated with the progression of cancer.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm Science Daily 4/17/2007]</ref> This study shows that not only can THC treat the side effects of cancer treatment, but can stop the spread of cancer, repair damage caused by tumors, and even reduce the size of tumors.

In addition to the positive effect on cancer treatment symptoms and cancer itself, marijuana is used to help patients afflicted with [[amyotrophic lateral sclerosis|ALS]]<ref>[http://ajh.sagepub.com/content/18/4/264.short American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine]</ref>.

Marijuana is an [[antispasmodic]] and is used in the treatment of seizures <ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=106 National Academies Press: Marijuana and muscle spasticity]</ref>. Marijuana is also used in the treatment of migraines, arthritis<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.1780090304/abstract Online Library: Treatment of adjuvant arthritis in rats with anti-inflammatory drugs]</ref>, depression<ref>[http://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/facts-about-marijuana Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana]</ref>, and glaucoma. However the effect of marijuana on intraocular pressure (IOC) is not as effective as those offered by other drugs on the market <ref>[http://www.nei.nih.gov/news/statements/marij.asp National Eye Institue: Glaucoma and Marijuana use]</ref>.

There have not been many in-depth and widely distributed studies into the possible medicinal effects of marijuana. However, with pressure from liberal advocates of marijuana, more otherwise accredited institutions are conducting research on the drug.

==Interesting Facts==
*Carl Sagan used recreational marijuana to help "open his mind".<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2009/10/07/carl-sagan-spaced-ou.html Boing Boing: Carl Sagan Spaced Out]</ref>
*Cannabis was first cultivated in China around 4000 B.C.<ref>[http://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/facts-about-marijuana Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana]</ref>
*U.S. Declaration of Independence was not written on hemp paper, despite popular belief.<ref>[http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q145.html Constitutional FAQ Answer #145 - U.S. Constitution Online]</ref>
*George Washington grew marijuana. <ref>[http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/gwtheman.htm The President and the Cabinet: George Washington the Man]</ref>
*Alcohol is over 100 times more lethal than marijuana (ratio of lethal dose to effective dose)<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol Wikipedia: Tetrahydrocannabinol]</ref>.
*President Obama has admitted to use of marijuana. Former President Clinton has also admitted to smoking marijuana, but claims that he 'did not inhale'.

==Legal Status==
Marijuana is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]] in the United States of America, meaning that it is illegal under federal law of the United States, and considered to have no redeemable medical value. In several countries, particularly in [[Western Europe]], it is has been decriminalised. However, in many other countries, particularly those in the Middle East and Asia, possession of even small amounts of cannabis can be punishable by death. In 2012, the states of [[Washington]] and [[Colorado]] adopted voter referenda to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. At the same time, [[Oregon]] voters rejected a similar proposition. Federal officials said that they would contest state laws that would legalize marijuana.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/08/us-usa-marijuana-votes-idUSBRE8A705E20121108|title=Marijuana legalization victories could be short-lived|first=Alex|last=Dobuzinskis|date=Nov 7, 2012|accessdate=November 8, 2012}}</ref>

The [[Netherlands]] decriminalized the use of marijuana in 1976. As a result, marijuana use among the 18-25 age group doubled, however, despite its availability, marijuana use in the Netherlands is lower than the European average. The Netherlands also saw an influx of "drug tourists" and other undesirables, as well as an increase in crime. This has since levelled out, leaving the Netherlands with one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

Many liberals have advocated for decriminalization.<ref>[http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition]</ref><ref>http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml</ref>

Many [[American]] [[conservative]]s, especially social conservatives, oppose legalization of marijuana in any form due to its perceived harmful medical and psychological effects and its likelihood of harm to third parties due to drug-related crime and reckless driving. A few libertarian-leaning conservatives, most notably [[Ron Paul]], [[William F. Buckley]], and [[Larry Elder]], have advocated the decriminalization of this drug. Some [[liberal]]s support legalization, but most instead advocate for drug treatment and rehabilitation. [[Libertarian]]s are usually the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization. [[Gary Johnson]], a former Republican and 2012 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate for President, is the highest ranking US politician to advocate for marijuana legalization. He was a two-term Governor of [[New Mexico]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Illegal substances]]
[[Category:Illegal Drugs]]