https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=ScorpionConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-30T22:45:17ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shays%27_Rebellion&diff=568641Shays' Rebellion2008-11-25T15:11:31Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[image:shays.jpg|300px|thumb|Shays' mob in possession of a courthouse]]<br />
'''Shays' Rebellion''' (or '''Shays’s Rebellion''' — but NOT "Shay’s Rebellion") was an uprising in western [[Massachusetts]] in 1786-87 led by former [[American Revolutionary War]] veteran [[Daniel Shays]]. The episode was the latest in a series of protests that began in 1782, and took place in throughout New England, which was still primarily rural. In response to new state taxes, payable in gold, levied to pay off the state debt, western farmers petitioned the state senate to issue inflationary paper money and to stop foreclosure of farm mortgages for landowners who could not pay the taxes. Speakers vehemently attacked the state senate as controlled by bankers and lawyers when it refused. Armed insurgents in the Berkshire Hills and the Connecticut valley, led by Shays and others, began in August 1786 to forcibly prevent judges from holding scheduled county court sessions. In September they forced the state supreme court at Springfield to adjourn. The people of Massachusetts had just won a rebellion against tyranny, and the Shays rebels talked the language of revolution. They talked of tar and feathers for anyone who defied the mob--and even talk of marching on Boston to attack the state capital. The very premise of self government was threatened by lawless men trying to shut down the state’s legal system instead of using the political process.<ref>The great majority of rebels could and did vote in the state’s annual elections.</ref> "Liberty seemed indeed to be degenerating into anarchy," as conservative historian [[Forrest McDonald]] has concluded.<ref> Forrest McDonald, "To Secure the Blessings of Liberty: The Making of the Constitution - the Infant American Nation Weathered Tremendous Obstacles in Order to Form a Constitutional Union." ''World and I''. Volume: 18. Issue: 2. February 2003. [http://www.questia.com/read/5002514133?title=To%20Secure%20the%20Blessings%20of%20Liberty%3a%20The%20Making%20of%20the%20Consitution%20-%20the%20Infant%20American%20Nation%20Weathered%20Tremendous%20Obstacles%20in%20Order%20to%20Form%20a%20Constitutional%20Union online edition]</ref><br />
<br />
==Suppression==<br />
[[Image:Shays' Rebellion.jpg|right]]<br />
The rebellion had little support from religious leaders; Baptists in particular were opposed. <ref> Szatmary, p. 89</ref> Amherst was a hotbed, where the Dickinson family were rebel leaders.<ref>Richards (2003) pp 89-92. Poet [[Emily Dickinson]] was born to the family in 1830.</ref>No major political figure endorsed the rebellion, and the national Congress made tentative plans to raise an army to help Massachusetts, but Congress lacked money<ref> Because 12 of the 13 states refused to send any money for the project, demonstrating the inability of the weak national government to defend anything.</ref>; in the event the national army proved unnecessary and was not created.<ref> For the national response see Joseph Parker Warren, "The Confederation and the Shays Rebellion," ''American Historical Review,'' Vol. 11, No. 1 (Oct., 1905), pp. 42-67 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1832364 in JSTOR]</ref> In response to the crisis Governor James Bowdoin, with support of the legislature, raised a volunteer state army, using money loaned by city merchants. He began spot raids to seize rebel leaders but that infuriated them more and they responded with a low-level guerrilla war.<ref> Szatmary, p. 91-94</ref> Militia units in the western part of the state refused to turn out, but the governor finally had 4000 men from eastern towns and cities to march west. <br />
<br />
Meanwhile the rebels were radicalized and now talked of overthrowing the government by force. Shays said he would, "march directly to Boston, plunder it, and then . . . destroy the nest of devils, who by their influence, make the Court [the legislature] enact what they please, burn it and lay the town of Boston in ashes." <ref> Quoted in Szatmary, p. 100. Note that Shays was only one of multiple leaders. </ref> They first needed to seize the federal arsenal in Springfield, which contained 7,000 muskets with bayonets, and plenty of gunpowder and bullets. Several thousand rebels moved on the arsenal in late January, but they were stopped by 1000 local militia loyal to the government. The militia had cannon, and killed four rebels and wounded 20 with a dozen rounds of grape.<ref>”Grape” means small bullets fired in shotgun-fashion from a cannon. </ref> The rebels resupplied themselves by looting stores, then reassembled in the nearby village of Petersham. The well-armed state army, 3000 strong under General Benjamin Lincoln, surprised them and without a battle the rebels fled in panic to their farms. The army now controlled the state, as Shays and most others escaped to Vermont.<ref> Vermont was not part of the U.S. at the time; it sent the rebels back to Massachusetts.</ref>. The British, in control in Canada, refused to help the rebels. A few additional skirmishes took place; one at Sheffield in late February left dozens dead or wounded on both sides. By April the rebellion had evaporated. <ref> Szatmary, pp. 95-112</ref> <br />
<br />
A dozen leaders were tried and sentenced to death but the governor immediately pardoned them; Shays was pardoned a year later. Thousands of rebels took oaths of loyalty to the state of Massachusetts and no one was punished; the courts resumed their business. A political upheaval shook the state in the spring elections of 1787. [[John Hancock]] was elected governor; he and the legislature took a hard line against the rebellion, but they also suspended the state taxes that had caused much of the problem, Many of the rebels left the state and headed for new lands to the west in New York; other remained and bitterly opposed the new federal Constitution of 1787.<br />
<br />
==Lessons learned==<br />
<br />
Shays' Rebellion, was used as a warning by nationalists like [[Alexander Hamilton]] and [[George Washington]] to convince conservatives across the new nation that the [[Articles of Confederation]] set up a weak government that was insufficient to protect against left-wing rebellions like Shays. Washington warned all his friends, commenting, "How melancholy that in so short a space [since the peace treaty of 1783], we should have made such large strides toward fulfilling the prediction of our transatlantic foe! 'Leave them to themselves, and their government will soon dissolve.'"<ref> Cited in McDonald (2003)</ref> The nationalists promoted the new Constitution which was written in 1787 and ratified in 1788, taking effect in 1789. Hamilton solved the underlying problem by having the federal government take over the debts of all the states (which had been incurred to pay for the Revolution), then paying them off with revenues from the tariff on imported goods.<br />
[[Image:Memorial -Shays Rebellion.jpg|right]]<br />
<br />
Anti-tax activists and extreme libertarians like [[Murray Rothbard]] have praised the Shays rebellion and denounced the U.S. Constitution, as well as denouncing George Washington. Conservative supporters of law and order and capitalism have condemned Shays. Leftist historians such as Szatmary (1980) have been sympathetic to the farmers as the victims of a newly emerging capitalism. Szatmary sees the farmers as traditionalists holing off the onslaught of financial capitalism which was enmeshing them deeper and deeper into debt to bankers in the cities. Szatmary’s critics note that rural Massachusetts was already well integrated into the capitalistic economy, and that the grievances centered on court procedures and fees, which indeed were unusually expensive.<br />
<br />
==Bibliography==<br />
* Feer, Robert A. "Shays's Rebellion and the Constitution: A Study in Causation," ''New England Quarterly,'' Vol. 42, No. 3 (Sep., 1969), pp. 388-410 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/363616 in JSTOR], downplays its causal role<br />
* Gross, Robert D., ed. ‘’In Debt to Shays: The Bicentennial of an Agrarian rebellion’’ (1993), favorable essays by historians<br />
* Priest, Claire. "Colonial Courts and Secured Credit: Early American Commercial Litigation and Shays' Rebellion," ''Yale Law Journal,'' Vol. 108, 1999 [http://www.questia.com/read/5001277838?title=Colonial%20Courts%20and%20Secured%20Credit%3a%20Early%20American%20Commercial%20Litigation%20and%20Shays'%20Rebellion online edition], technical analysis of court procedures, showing that fees were indeed very high and a serious burden<br />
* Richards, Leonard L. ''Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle,'' (2003), 204pp , statistical study of 4000 rebels; finds that most towns had few or no rebels, while 40 farming towns produced 85% of the rebels. Those 40 towns had average debt levels; Shays was deep in debt but several men he owed money also joined the rebellion. Only a handful of rebels ever were in debtor’s prison. <br />
* Starkey, Marion L. ''A Little Rebellion'' (1955) popular history [http://www.questia.com/library/book/a-little-rebellion-by-marion-l-starkey.jsp online edition]<br />
* Szatmary, David P. ''Shays' Rebellion: The Making of an Agrarian Insurrection.'' (1980), 184, liberal scholarly history [http://www.questia.com/read/23041672?title=Shays'%20Rebellion%3a%20The%20Making%20of%20an%20Agrarian%20Insurrection online edition]<br />
* Taylor, Robert J. ''Western Massachusetts in the Revolution'' (1954), conservative scholarly history [http://www.questia.com/read/7694335?title=Western%20Massachusetts%20in%20the%20Revolution online edition]<br />
* Warren, Joseph Parker. “The Confederation and the Shays Rebellion,” ''American Historical Review,'' Vol. 11, No. 1 (Oct., 1905), pp. 42-67 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1832364 in JSTOR], response by Congress<br />
<br />
===Primary sources===<br />
* "Documents Relating to the Shays Rebellion, 1787," ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 2, No. 4 (Jul., 1897), pp. 693-699 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1833986 in JSTOR]<br />
* Hawley, Joseph. "Shays's Rebellion ," ''The American Historical Review,'' Vol. 36, No. 4 (Jul., 1931), pp. 776-778 [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1838006 in JSTOR], letter from eye witness<br />
====Notes====<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:United States History]]<br />
[[Category:United States Government]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:William_Ayers&diff=529599Talk:William Ayers2008-10-05T02:49:08Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>I removed the Hillary quote because the section's introductory paragraph covers everything she said, and in a much more detailed manner. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 23:25, 24 August 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Why the HELL is this guy not in prison??? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 22:49, 4 October 2008 (EDT)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=September_11,_2001_attacks&diff=528132September 11, 2001 attacks2008-10-02T15:04:32Z<p>Scorpion: /* Domestic Policy */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:National Park Service 9-11 Statue of Liberty and WTC fire.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]<br />
The '''Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001''' were the deadliest to ever occur on [[United States of America|US]] soil and had far reaching effects on both [[foreign policy|foreign]] and [[domestic policy]]. <br />
The coordinated attacks by [[al Qaeda]] affiliated [[Islam|Islamic]] extremists saw three transcontinental airliners strike the [[World Trade Center]] towers (buildings 1 and 2) in [[New York City]], NY and the [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] outside of [[Washington, D.C.]] within one hour of each other. The attacks succeeded in destroying both World Trade Center towers as well as a third building in the complex and significantly damaged the Pentagon (though the Pentagon was still able to function). A fourth airliner crashed in a field in Shanksville, [[Pennsylvania|PA]], failing to reach its objective.<br />
[[Image:Sep 11 2001.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]<br />
The events of the day are often referred to simply as "September 11th" or "nine-eleven" (often written as "9/11").<br />
<br />
==The Attacks==<br />
[[Image:9-11.jpg|right|thumb|225px]]<br />
<!-- I have purposefully left this time-line limited to the physical events of the day as response time or lack thereof could be seen as partisan. Feel free to add to the time-line. --><br />
<br />
*8:46 a.m. EDT - American Airlines Flight 11 (Boeing 767-200) crashed into the 94-98th floors of the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC 1).<br />
**Casualties - 11 crew, 81 passengers.<br />
<br />
*9:02 a.m. EDT - United Airlines Flight 175 (Boeing 767-200) crashed into the 78-85th floors of the South Tower (WTC 2) <br />
**Casualties - 9 crew, 56 passengers.<br />
<br />
*9:37 a.m. EDT - American Airlines Flight 77 (Boeing 757-200) crashed into the Pentagon.<br />
**Casualties - 6 crew, 58 passengers.<br />
<br />
*10:03 a.m. EDT - United Airlines Flight 93 (Boeing 757-200) crashed in a field outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.<br />
**Casualties - 7 crew, 38 passengers.<br />
<br />
*10:05 AM - The WTC 2 (South Tower) collapses.<br />
<br />
*10:10 AM - An external portion of the Pentagon collapses.<br />
<br />
*10:28 AM - The WTC 1 (North Tower) collapses.<br />
<br />
*4:10 PM - World Trade Center Building 7 is reported to be on fire.<br />
<br />
*5:20 PM - World Trade Center Building 7 collapses.<br />
<br />
===Ground Casualties===<br />
[[Image:393px-WTC-remnant highres.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Remains of the South Tower, September 13, 2001.]]<br />
The total loss of life is constantly being reevaluated to account for wrongly reported missing persons and, in some cases, occurrences of fraud. Estimates of more than 6,000 deaths were announced following the attacks. The current estimate is 2,996 fatalities as a direct result of the attacks. About 500 foreign nationals from over 90 countries are believed to have died in the attack.<ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/ "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40"] at CNN.com, Phil Hirschkorn, 10/29/03</ref><br />
<br />
The Department of Defense reported the deaths of 125 people at The Pentagon. The aftermath of the World Trade Center towers collapsing created a good deal of confusion and has been the main source of discrepancies in casualty estimates. As of October 29, 2003, New York City reported 2605 deaths in the attacks, not counting the passengers and crew of the planes. <ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/ "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40"] at CNN.com, Phil Hirschkorn, 10/29/03</ref><br />
<br />
As a matter of course, the deaths of the 19 [[suicide|hijackers]] are not included in these casualty totals.<br />
==Economic Impact==<br />
<br />
The material costs of the attacks are well in excess of one hundred billion US dollars. Factoring in stock market losses, loss of revenue in New York City, loss of jobs, impact on air travel, and heightened security, some estimate the cost approaches two trillion dollars.<ref>[http://www.iags.org/costof911.html The Cost of September 11] Institute for the Analysis of Global Security</ref><br />
<br />
Some estimates of the cost of executing the plan place it in the $400,000-$500,000 range, making it an extremely "profitable" operation for al-Qaeda. <ref>[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm The 9/11 Commission Report]</ref><br />
<br />
==Finding Out What Happened==<br />
<br />
The perpetrators of the attacks were soon identified as members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization headed by [[Osama Bin Laden|Osama bin Laden]], who proudly took credit for killing thousands of innocent people. Motives for the attack vary widely. Bin Laden viewed it as a [[Jihad]] against the West, blaming America's foreign policy towards Israel, sanctions against Iraq for its role in invading Kuwait and forcing it to pay back the damaged parties, and American troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi government. From the viewpoint of the American leaders, Bin Laden was embittered against a society with freedom of speech, freedom of government, and freedom of religion and that those philosophies had led the United States to become the richest nation on the planet.<br />
<br />
==Social Impacts==<br />
<br />
Following the attacks there was a strong surge of patriotism in virtually all facets of American society. The government, being aware that the most deadly attack ever on American soil could stir up animosity against the ethnic or religious group of the perpetrators, went out of its way along with the media to separate Islam from the actions taken by its more radical adherents, referring to it at multiple times as a "religion of love". While people of Middle Eastern decent and adherents of Islam were concerned at first, the overall effect of hostility towards these groups was barely noticeable. Although there were literally millions of Muslims in America out of a total population of 300 million who could have sought out reprisals, in an entire year less than 500 cases of aggression of verbal hostility were reported.<br />
<br />
==Consequences of the Attacks on US Policy==<br />
===Domestic Policy===<br />
<br />
The attacks were a direct or indirect cause of massive changes in United States domestic policy. Most notably, the ''Homeland Security Act of 2002'' "established a [[Department of Homeland Security]], as an executive department of the United States" <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/hsl-bill.pdf H.R. 5005 The Homeland Security Act]</ref>, a cabinet level position. One of the tools implemented by the Department is the [[Homeland Security Advisory System]], a color coded advisory system meant to "establish a comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to Federal, State, and local authorities and to the American people." <ref>[http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/laws/ DHS Laws and Regulations] Department of Homeland Security</ref><br />
<br />
Another notable result of the attacks was the ''[[USA PATRIOT Act|USA PATRIOT Act of 2001]]'' ('''U'''niting and '''S'''trengthening '''A'''merica by '''P'''roviding '''A'''ppropriate '''T'''ools '''R'''equired to '''I'''ntercept and '''O'''bstruct '''T'''errorism). The act was written to expand the authority of law enforcement and the justice system in the pursuit of terrorism suspects.<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: ''The USA PATRIOT Act''] Library of Congress</ref><br />
<br />
===Foreign Policy===<br />
<br />
In response to the attacks, the United States declared a [[War on Terror]], which comprises United States military action in [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]] as well as a significant increase in intelligence gathering and a new outlook on foreign relations.<br />
<br />
==Conspiracy Theories==<br />
<br />
Many conspiracy theories <ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061002/alterman Lying About 9/11? Easy as [[ABC]]], Eric Alterman, ''The Nation'', September 14, 2006 (October 2, 2006 issue). </ref> have sprouted up from the events of September 11, 2001, including the "Loose Change" movies seen on YouTube. While compelling, these movies have been comprehensively disproven by independent experts <ref>[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html "Debunking The 9/11 Myths"] ''Popular Mechanics'', Mar. 2005 Cover Story</ref>. Prominent endorsers of such theories include talk show host [[Rosie O'Donnell]] as well as actor [[Charlie Sheen]]. A third of the American public has bought into the idea of some sort of role by federal officials. This view is much more common among those who get their news solely from the internet and is rare for those who read newspapers or watch the news on regular television. "Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11"<ref>http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CONSPIRACY-08-02-06</ref><br />
<br />
==Sources==<br />
*[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf The 9/11 Commission Report]<br />
*[http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers], [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|NIST]].<br />
*[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/index.html September 11: Chronology of Terror] at CNN.com<br />
*[http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm Federal Bureau of Investigations PENTTBOM Press Release]<br />
*[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html Lists of Victims] at CNN.com<br />
<br />
==Additional Information==<br />
*[http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive The Internet Archive's file of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and BBC broadcasts for Sept 11-13, 2001]<br />
*[http://www.televisionarchive.org/ Television Archive of news broadcasts for 9/11]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[category:United States History]]<br />
[[Category:Riots and terrorist incidents in the United States]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=466673Talk:Intelligent design2008-06-05T01:19:00Z<p>Scorpion: /* what is wrong with this sentence? */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{protect|DanH}}<br />
<br />
== Uneditable?? ==<br />
I understand the need to monitor this "conservi" because of arguments, but there should be a way to get new ideas into a topic. So I commented that there is no evidence for intelligent design (at least in the section called "evidence"). It's a proposition or a belief, not a conveyance of facts. Show me a fact and I'll concede to "evidence," but that's not what is here. Opinions are here (see Evidence --> Support below). It's ok to believe in ID over evolution, but don't confuse your readers by calling a belief "fact." You're sending them backwards a step in their thinking; misleading them. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 18:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I came here to say the same thing. There is no evidence to support the conjecture of intelligent design under the "evidence" section of this article. In fact, that section spends more time talking about evolution than intelligent design. You don't prove a conjecture by disproving a theory. What I would do if I could is delete everything under the "evidence" section of this page for this reason.--[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 11:33, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::There is a dispute in the academic community over whether there is evidence for intelligent design. Your opinions don't count, if neither of you is an academic.<br />
<br />
:::Specifically at issue is what sort of evidence can be accepted to prove or disprove ID's thesis - or for that matter, the naturalistic theory of evolution. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:44, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::But would you say that anything under the "Evidence" section of this article qualifies as evidence? --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 20:40, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Evidence --> Support ==<br />
This section contains no evidence and properly belongs under "support." The statement "...that there are certain irreducible complexities in organisms which can only be addressed by an intelligent designer" is not supported by the book quote. The book quote paraphrases 'as humans we can't experience evolution in molecular biology, so we don't ~know~ that it is true.' Ok, that's fine and it is the same statement of doubt placed on all science. Science doesn't prove anything, it just finds evidence to support hypotheses.<br />
<br />
However, refuting proof of molecular evolution provides no evidence for intelligent design, it just leaves room for another explanation. This is the classic [[argument from ignorance]] and offers (at best) support. --[[User:Propro|Propro]] 16:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Arguments ==<br />
<br />
"obfuscate?!!" I had to look it up. Anybody else pick up the irony in that statement? Education is not a bad thing. In academia, you're allowed to say just about anything you want... but you have to support it with an argument if you want people to listen.--[[User:Propro|Propro]] 17:49, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Important, vitally important, to set out the major errors with evolution that intelligent design addresses. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Bottom line: Secularist commentators on Intelligent Design are Ivory Tower snobs that hide behind exclusionary institutions meant to obfuscate knowledge. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:With a kick butt secret hand shake too! [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Dimitar, please discuss in here before making edits on main article. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Dawkins is a known atheist, TmToulouse. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 19:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::DunsScotus, I'm guessing your defition of "Ivory Tower snob" is anyone you can't understand. -'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 16:21, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== General ==<br />
<br />
To avoid an edit war, I'll discuss the changes I made here before reintroducing them.<br />
<br />
On the Judge Jones speech: Jones is a Republican and a Christian, appointed by George W Bush. If we're going to count quoting him as 'liberal POV,' then perhaps we should make a list of conservatives who aren't conservative enough for conservapedia. Who wants to start?<br />
<br />
On the DI's publication list: the cited list contains 38 publications. That's assuming no duplication. It's also counting books, not just articles, and not all of the entries are peer-reviewed. That's not even considering the actual content of the articles, and whether any make a positive case for ID.<br />
<br />
On the DI's petition: it is neither designed for nor capable of measuring an increase in support for ID. The claim that scientific support for ID is 'steadily growing' is utterly unsupported. 700 is not 'broad support' in a community of tens of thousands. The petition is indeed open to mathematicians and engineers, as can be seen at the cited website.<br />
<br />
On 'new scientific evidence' questioning evolution: far too strong a statement to be made without so much as a citation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:39, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:The removal of reference to the Judge Jones speech was wrong and detracts from the authority of this site. I will replace it unless a cogent reason for its removal is provided. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:00, 2 March 2007 (EST)<br />
::Authority of this site? It's a laughing stock. "Design Theory has broad scientific support" indeed. What a joke! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 17:52, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Since no one has even attempted to dispute my points, I'm going to go ahead and make the necessary changes. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:59, 6 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Exactly why are you adding the liberal viewpoint as fact to the article? [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:05, 6 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::Perhaps you could start with the ''list of reasons above'', not to mention Conservapedia's first commandment. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:08, 6 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Everything I added and subsequently restored is properly supported by proper ''conservative'' sources, which is more than I can say about your changes. [[User:Harpie snark|Harpie snark]] 17:23, 6 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::"I'm right and you're wrong" does not constitute a rebuttal. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
I simply wished to outline the reasons behind the changes I made. <br />
<br />
Essentially, Intelligent Design, as is, can not be a scientific theory unless you can prove the existence of God with the scientific method. You can believe it, you could be right, but it is not science. This is the reason why the petition to have it taught in the science classroom was denied.<br />
<br />
<br />
Proponents of intelligent design, such as Behe, always stress that the guiding intelligence is probably God, but that it doesn't have to be. This is necessary to ensure that intelligent can be viewed as science rather than religious dogma. [[User:Order|Order]] 10:20 (AEST)<br />
<br />
If you claim that intelligent design claims that the intelligent cause is God, you just reiterate to point which the Kitzmiller party in the Dover trial tried to make; namely that ID is religion and not science. ID proponents always claim with good reason that the intelligent cause is unknown. [[User:Order|Order]] 14:20 (AEST)<br />
<br />
I eliminated the word "notable" in two places because it is not supported by facts and it is simply a POV word. I also added the word "some" because obviously not all scientists are supporting ID - in fact, only a miniscule number of them are. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 17:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I find this "Bible argument" Hillarious. ID is simply idetifying in matter that an intelligent entity influenced it's existsnce. DNA and Natural law as well as the constant sad picture of mosaics show that Intelligent Design is simply identifying that the matter was created by something intelligent. There are Buddhists, Daoists, New Age, Hidnu, Moslem and Jewish people who publically support it in college. What a sad croc for evolutionsits to say it has to do with the Bible. --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11:35, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== "notable"? ==<br />
<br />
There is a fair bit of edit war going on now over the word "notable". How are these things notable? Why are they notable? The word adds nothing to the phrase "From 2001 to 2007 over 700 notable scientists" unless one can actually say what makes these scientists notable (beyond signing the manifesto). I strongly recommend its removal. There is a difference between removing liberal bias and adding conservative bias. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I agree totally. "Notable" means absolutely nothing in this context. If someone wants to show me a list of Nobel Prize winning scientists who signed the document in question, I'd say "notable" was warranted. It's not even a matter of "adding conservative bias" - it's just gibberish. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
"Notable" stricken again. It would be nice if the person who is reverting my edits would explain what purpose "notable" serves instead of just reverting without comment. --[[User:MoeLarryAndJesus|MoeLarryAndJesus]] 18:58, 14 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==two issues==<br />
<br />
Someone messed uop the article and deleted it all but left some curse words. Also, why is there no article about Dr William Dembski? I believe he has proven evolution wrong by using math and science, but there is no article about him and very little mentions of him in this article (even before it was deleted). [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If you want an article on Dembski, feel free to create one. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== The Theory of Intelligent Design ==<br />
<br />
I notice that evolution is (for reasons that I never really understood) defined under the heading "The Theory of Evolution". Shouldn't Intelligent Design be defined under the heading "The Theory of Intellegent Design". As things stand it rather looks as if Conservapedia is endorsing intelligent design over evolution. I am sure that this is unintentional. Perhaps this page should be moved to "The Theory of Intelligent Design". Comments? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Just as soon as someone develops a coherent theory of intelligent design, we can move the article. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This goes back to, no doubt, the notion that evolution is just (or "just") a theory, whereas intelligent design is, I suppose, to be considered the standard non-biblical explanation. [[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]]<br />
<br />
:Yes, evolution is a theory. The idea that the Earth orbits around the sun is ''also'' a theory, we just have ALOT of evidence that is in support of said orbit. The idea that the Sun is a ball of gas is also a theory, but supported by numerous scientific experiments via observation from Earth and with probes. So no, Intelligent Design is not a theory because it refuses any chance of it being disproven, it's inherently deep seated in the idea that absolutely everything it states is pure fact. I suggest you go buy a telescope and try and see if you can find God somewhere 'round the Andromeda galaxy. For it to be a theory you have to present '''''evidence''''' that supports the existence of Him/Her/It/Them. All you have is a book that's arguably overexaggerated fiction mixed in with some history. [[User:Opacic|Opacic]] 05:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The theory part should be removed. Intelligent design is not a theory it is a hypothesis.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It's not even a hypothesis. It's conjecture. It's a vague assertion inserted in a gap of understanding. It claims that a common ancestor species led to all extant life through the process of evolution, but at certian key points a "designer" of unspecified nature and origin used unspecified methods to "design" biological features on populations of divergent organisms that could not otherwise have emerged. It offers no actual mechanism (to qualify even as a hypothesis it must state exactly <i>how</i> the 'design' was implemented into a feature, not merely that a feature was 'designed'), it merely asserts that an unspecified mechanism had "design" intent behind it solely upon the basis of some people being unable to think of any means by which those aforementioned features could have emerged. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 12:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== BCE ==<br />
<br />
how come [[BCE]] isnt allowed?<br />
:Because it ''really'' means '''B'''e-'''C'''oming '''E'''volutionsists! --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 02:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is answered on the commandments page, but essentially its because the Conservapedia founders believe that any term that doesn't mention Christ is Anti-Christian. I dont understand it either, but they make the rules... just seems like nitpicking to me. - Suricou<br />
<br />
== Other Intelligent Causes ==<br />
<br />
In the statement:<br />
<br />
"The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [2]. Many proponents however admit to believe the intelligent cause to be God."<br />
<br />
There is listed only one potential source for the intelligent cause, that being God. Should there be other potential intelligent causes listed? I know there are many who believe humans are the decendants of alien and ape interbreeding, now they may not be a "sane" position but shouldn't there be an attempt at listing at least one other possibility? Any suggestions?<br />
<br />
: Earlier version of this article had a reference to extra-terrestrials. I even added a link to a site by the Raelians. This entire piece was then removed with as reason that Raelians are religious nuts. I can see that point. However, Behe for example also said something to that effect, that it could have been an alien, or a time traveling biochemist. I am not sure if this article needs a reference to extra-terrestrial causes, but if you want to propose something, I would start with Behe's or Dembski, since they are less controversial as the Raelians, or Erich van Daeniken, or some Russian guy, who has a theory about a 10th planet (forgot his name:). --[[User:Order|Order]] 17 March, 19:00 (AEST)<br />
<br />
::If my views decided, JWs and Catholics would be considered religious nuts, I find their respective beliefs rediculous. But its not my place to decide which religion is nutty, nor anyones - go ahead and put it back on, and if someone wants to take it out again then they should come up with a more specific reason than that. - BornAgainBrit<br />
<br />
::I agree that the Raleians are kind of out there but it a round about way they support what Behe and Dembski say on the subject (both propose it could be a space alien). Wikipedia would not allow any mention of the Raelians on their article about Intelligent Design even though the Raleians specifically mention the intelligent designer(s). It might broaden the article to inlcude their perspective on intelligent design. That's the problem with Wikipedia, they do not allow all sides to be represented. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 12:10, 19 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Neither does this side. The Raelians are a though sell here as well. --[[User:Order|Order]] 20 March<br />
<br />
::::Why is it a tough sell? The design theorists all claim it ''could'' be a space alien and the Raelians all claim it ''is'' a space alien. Just seems odd to leave this fact out, especially since the Raelians are supporting intelligent design theory and not criticising it. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 14:14, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Conservative's "factual error" ==<br />
<br />
Conservative, you don't state how that was in error. There are two possibilities:<br />
* You show multiple articles that have been in peer reviewed papers<br />
* You show that the article that was mentioned was not pulled from the paper<br />
Otherwise, it was not in error and to remove the explaining text only serves to mislead the reader. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Aaaaaaaaand he protected it.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 16:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: What a fascist, Man, anytime I question my decision to move out of my country I can come here. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: This should '''not''' be protected. I'm not convinced this was an error. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::The footnote shows there have been more than one article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
:::::Lies makes baby jesus cry. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
(Wooo hooo! One more for the Lock List:[[User:myk]] [[User:Myk|Myk]] 16:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT) I think I'll just hold out on removing this from the list... I think I know how this will play out.)<br />
<br />
ColinR correctly unlocked it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Locking articles is to prevent vandalism, not to enforce one's ideology. If more peer reviewed papers can be found, I have no issues with changing the article. Until then, that section should remain as is and the article should be '''unlocked'''. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 16:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:To Conservative<nowiki>:</nowiki> calling editors who made factual edits "unreasonable people" and "evolutionists" is an ad hominem attack. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 16:55, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== what is wrong with this sentence? ==<br />
<br />
Recently, there has been articles which defended the [[intelligent design]] position in scientific journals which traditionally have favored the macroevolutionary position. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640]<br />
<br />
LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
:Pull out TWO just TWO articles that have been published in peer review journals not run by the DI and affiliates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Aside from the grammar, there have not been '''articles''', there has been '''one'''. As such, the AmesG edit is the correct one. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup><br />
<br />
:Intelligent design is broadly supported in the scientific community. We should consider Behe's books. [http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html] [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 16:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It is? I thought the scientific community was against it. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 21:19, 4 June 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Those aren't peer reviewed articles. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]]<sup>[[User_talk:ColinR|talk]]</sup> 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Behe is still another source nonetheless. There's no reason he should not be included, if not for historical notability. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: A few books by one individual does not constitute broad support. Nor are those peer reviewed. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:[http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/2005/12/discovery-institute-and-publications.html fun reading] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Behe's books are irrelevant to whether ID is "broadly supported by the scientific community," which it is clearly not.[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Here is a portion of that footnoted material and pay attention to the bold portion:<br />
<br />
Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Scientific Journals, Scientific Anthologies and Conference Proceedings<br />
<br />
'''Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.'''<br />
<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
: The key phrase here is "Peer-Edited or Editor-Reviewed" -- that is not the same at all as "peer reviewed". Those are not peer reviewed journals. They do not claim to be. It is a very different level of what is acceptable to each. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
: Furthermore ... those journals you have linked to are not ones that are traditionally proponents of evolution. You've even got a philsophy journal in there. None of those are peer reviewed science journals. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Hahahaha! Rivista di Biologia???? You are kidding right. Let me guess you don't know much about that journal? Books that have not under gone peer review don't work either. We are talking SCIENCE also not philosophy. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just because secularists fail to recognize the truth of the Bible, and gang up on brave men who try to expose the truth (there's an analogy to theorists of global climate change, here) doesn't mean that Behe isn't a trailblazer in furthering understanding of God's creation. I'd say secularist scientific opinion is irrelevant. Conservative, you're on the right track! [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Just check DunsScotus... you do know that ID has "nothing to do with religion" right? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I don't get why everyone is so mad about this. In my view there is a rich amount of information available to debate both sides. However, the people attacking "many" just seem to want to discredit ID. Why not admit that both sounds have reasonable grounds for argument?--[[User:CWilson|CWilson]] 17:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
: The problem here is that facts are being misrepresented. It doesn't matter who is misrepresenting them - I'll fight just as hard if a secularist misrepresents something in the Bible. However, when one says that multiple articles have been published in peer reviewed journals and that is shown to be not true, and the one article that was published was withdrawn, then facts are being misrepresented. One can argue about interpretations all they want, but to make patently false claims to bolster their side of the argument is unacceptable. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:CWilson the point is that the Discovery Institute's list of "peer-reviewed and peer-edited" publications supportive of ID is basically full of what is at best misleading information, and at worst outright lies.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 17:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Intelligent Design is a useful corrective to the foul odors produced by the materialist and atheistic opinions of [[Charles Darwin]] (you'll note his entry identifies him as such.) Along with Marxism, these are philosophies that have done great harm to humanity by tempting them away from Christianity and Capitalism. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Please don't say that they're liars. Just don't go down this road. There are many evolutionsits who have lied about their findings of "missing links" on the human evolutionary chain. There ahs been a lot of "hand waiving" on evolution by atheists, deists, liberals and neo-marxists for years. <br />
<br />
We have seen this with "peer review" fraud by "denying articles on the basis of lack of peer review" for the Creation-Evolution Magazine for several years. THAT was fraud and Discovery Institute finally "broke" the peer review bubble troubling all of our "honest" evolutionists as shown in the movie: "Flock of Dodos." [[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== why aren't you counting this? ==<br />
<br />
Jonathan Wells, “Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62. <br />
<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
:Because Rivsta di Biologia is not a legitimate journal. It publishes everything, and is run by a fringe editor. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Would [[The Fortean Times]] be acceptable? --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 17:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Is Rivsta peer reviewed? Yes or no? Is it a science journal? Yes or no? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
Rivsta is a Theoretical Biology journal, not a research journal. ''<sup>personal remark removed</sup>'' Lol:)--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 12:57, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ID is bad science. It assumes a priori that something is true (that some intelligent designer fashioned life with intent) and then attempts to find some sort of evidence to support these claims. It is entirely contrary to fundamental scientific methodology.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, I would question the motive of people of faith who seek evidence of the hand of god within the origins of life. Christianity is predicated upon faith. You must profess a faith in God as your savior and to search for evidence to support that faith would seem to be a position that is contradictory and perhaps even heretical, no?<br />
<br />
== Impact Factor ==<br />
<br />
:No and no. Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::What does this mean: Anything with a 0.5 IF is NOT a science journal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
::::My apologies, IF is used in academia to rank journals by influence and respect. Its called the Impact Factor. Essentially you can think of it as a measure of how much other scientist pay attention to the journal. Anything under 1 means that it is NEVER cited and never read by anyone outside the journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Impact Factors are only relevant when discussing secularist publications. Given the existing biases against the truth (or the paradigm!) it is hard to believe that the Biblical Truth would get much play in say, ''Nature.'' [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: This actually supports the suggestion that Rivsta di Biologia is not part of the ''secularist publications'' and thus should not be used in addressing if there is support amongst mainstream science as has been alleged. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]]<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::::Tmtoulouse, you said to "rank journals". You therefore admitted it was a journal. It is a science journal. Now why isn't it peer reviewed? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:32, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
::::::::Wrong. It is used to "rank journals" but that does not make this a SCIENCE journal. It merely makes it a journal that no one reads. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Even a scientific journal ''nobody reads'' is still a scientific journal. Just because your precious secularist publications wouldn't recognize Truth if it was submitted to them as a peer-reviewed journal article doesn't detract from the Truth of the Intelligent Design movement being published in Scientific journals. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 17:36, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay guys I am bolding this cause you seem to miss it '''journal does not equal science journal'''[[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Tmtoulouse, I think you are playing games. It is a science journal and it is ranked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
:::::Rivista?? You are still on about Rivista? No it is NOT a science journal and it is not "ranked" in any normal sense of the word. An IF can be computed for anything, Rivista does NOT have an IF. Its NOTHING. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Tmtoulouse, Why are you saying that Rivesta is not peer reviewed? Can you back that statement up? Secondly, who decides what IF number decides if a journal is a science journal. Is Tmtoulouse the decider? And who decides that IF number is even relevant in determining if a journal is a science journal. Again is it you? Please show me some authoritative source that gives a IF number cut off for something to be considered a science journal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
(undent) In order to be a ''science'' journal you must contribute to ''science'' if none of the article you published receive even a cursory glance then you can't not say your journal is contributing to science. Rivista is not a respected journal, the editor is fringe, publishes mostly rants against the "establishment" and has as much peer review as a journal published by the DI. If you REALLY want to add the Rivista citation, then we need to link to sites criticizing Rivista, and this is not needed in the article. But, even if Rivista WAS a science journal, as has been pointed out all ready the paper published there is NOT about intelligent design and did not us ID "theory". So its an interesting, though moot point, about the reliability of Rivista as a journal. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid ==<br />
<br />
Creationist scientists have peer reviewed journals too! The whole statement is invalid [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
:My buddies and I could put together a peer reviewed journal about ninjas, too, but that doesn't make it accurate and it doesn't make it science.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:If you want to add a sentence about how they have published lots in journals that are run by creationist go for it. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm new here but I think Conservapedia would be best served by NOT perpetuating the half truths (such as peer review) told by the Discovery Institute. The sooner the concept of intelligent design can divorce itself from the likes of the Discovery Institute the better. Avoiding the mistakes of Wikipedia is a great thing but to adopt the Discovery Institute's methods (and arguments) would not be an improvement. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The Discovery Institute only supports the Truth, Miles. If that Truth is inconvenient for secularist ears, so much the better. As Paul says, in Galatians 4:16, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Duns, I swear on everything I hold dear, the DI does not want you supporting them in one breath and then quoting scripture in the next. They won't get what they want that way. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Creationists==<br />
<br />
::Cross-apply that Galatians quote to YEC reactions to evolution in general.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::The problem YEC's have is starting in the middle of the science. To wit: "We know that the Bible is Truth itself, how then can we fit the science to match that which we already know to be 'true'?" YEC science '''can''' be crafted so that everything fits. It cannot, however, make any predictions because the science can only be used in ONE direction, the past. You will never see a YEC say, "We know dinosaurs and human beings existed at the same time, therefore it may be observed that (insert prediction here); thus providing a truth that the premise is true. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 18:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Creationists are far afield from Intelligent Design advocates, but in both cases, it is important to suppress these secularist notions of ''inferable truth'' with recourse to unimpeachable sources, in this case, the Bible and common-sense observation of reality. There is no evidence, without resorting to inference, for so many cherished liberal/secularist concepts. This means that Evolution, for example, or Geologic Time Scale-ism, are belief systems of their own, but false ones, because they do not have The Bible, and the Truth of God's Word, behind them. Who would you rather put your trust in? Human scientists? Or God? Cracker, the Bible is the Only Truth you need. Don't second-guess God. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wow. I guess I'm the first one here, so I'll drop the f-bomb: '''''falsifiability'''''. By explaining your "truth" that way, you prove how it's not science.-18:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Where is your God, AmesG? God is the only Truth, science just uncovers what God wants to reveal. [[User:DunsScotus|DunsScotus]] 18:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So much for God not being the author of confusion. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 18:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Well he is the source of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Great_Flood#On_Kant translation error] in the King James bible according to DunsScotus. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:54, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Without Merit==<br />
<br />
Okay DunsScotus what is with out merit? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Well's Centrioles paper==<br />
<br />
Whether or not ''Rivista'' is a credible journal is utterly irrelevant, since Well's hypothesis was in no way based on any theory of intelligent design. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== I found several articles in peer reviewed science journals which were ID ==<br />
<br />
[http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC Articles Supportive of Intelligent Design Published in Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals]<br />
<br />
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.<br />
<br />
John A. Davison, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 155-166.<br />
<br />
S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.<br />
<br />
M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.<br />
<br />
<br />
D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315. <br />
<br />
<br />
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.<br />
<br />
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.<br />
<br />
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.<br />
<br />
D. A. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301 (2000): 585-595. <br />
<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
:Can you explain in your own words how each paper supports ID, or are you just taking the DI's word for it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::It will take me some time to review all of these, so I will get back to you. What I will look for is that they are published in a peer review science journal, address topics that are science and used Intelligent Design to make their conclusions. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:20, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Blast! Beat me to it. Obviously the one from Rivista di Biologia isn't legit, as said above. Behe, too, is obviously suspect. Also, the "Higher Taxonomic" etc. is already mentioned in the article as the one peer reviewed ID article. Perhaps you could read the other articles and explain how they support ID: I don't really feel like taking the Discovery Institute at face value.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Conservative, I think it's impolite to revert until other people have looked at those and agreed.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
...aaaaand it's protected again.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:23, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm familiar with the Behe/Snoke paper. Two minor details: one, it's an argument against evolution, not for ID. Two, what they actually managed to prove was that IC systems can evolve in a reasonable timeframe, which is the exact opposite of what they were going for. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 18:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Please see the summary of the above articles located here. [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC here] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:25, 24 March 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
:::::I will NOT review these articles UNTIL the page is unprotected and returned to the consensus version. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 18:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I'll take that as an admission that you are indeed just taking the DI's word for it, shall I? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.<br />
<br />
W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.<br />
<br />
D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.<br />
<br />
M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325-342.<br />
<br />
The following papers are the ones that I am not immediately familiar with. JAD's work is out, the Axe work does NOT support intelligent design, the behe snoke paper also supports evolutionary theory. This is whats left. Anyone familiar with these works? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:22, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Lying for Jesus: the American Taliban==<br />
<br />
This page is a joke, this site is a joke. I am done. There are many people here that thing they can do something with this site, do not be fooled. I thought there was hope, there is not. Give up on it. Turn your back on it. These fascist are not worth your time. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 19:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Kitzmiller trap. ==<br />
<br />
The first paragrah used to say:<br />
<br />
''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation [http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341].''<br />
<br />
Now it says:<br />
<br />
''Many design theorists leave the identity of the intelligent cause open.[2]''<br />
<br />
This phrasing is problematic, since it helps opponents of intelligent design, such as in Kitzmiller vs. Dover. They say that ID is repackaged creationism. To not fall into this trap all it is essential for the theory to leave the intelligent cause open. And that is exactly what all theorists do. When they speak as private person, and not as scientist, they often admit that they think that is is [[God]], but as theorists they '''all''' leave it open. And with good reason, because otherwise you kind of agree with the Kitzmiller party that intelligent design is not science but religous. I would strongly sugggest to revert the current version to the old version. [[User:Order| Order]] 25 March, 17:10 (AEST)<br />
<br />
The reason the question is not accessible by scientific investigation is because the designer is in the realm of the supernatural. Science is not capable of investigating the supernatural.<br />
<br />
Regardless of how you word it, the intelligent designer is the ultimate reason ID isn’t science because ID theory '''requires the intervention''' of this designer. A designer who, in the end, must be supernatural. This is one of the reasons that ID doesn’t get as much support as many of the editors here would like.<br />
<br />
Is it really right to change the wording to make this less apparent to the reader? [[User:Land Dweller| Land Dweller]] 26 March, 03:35 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So, you suggest to leave the Kitzmiller trap open because interlligent design cannot possibly be science, no matter how you word it? [[User:Order]] 27 March<br />
<br />
:The debate is between<br />
:#Those who call ID a form of creationism and want it kept out of public schools<br />
:#Those who call ID a legitimate topic of scientific discussion and want it to be allowed in public schools that wish to include it<br />
<br />
:Let's create an article (or section) on the [[Intelligent Design controversy]]. (Full disclosure: I'm "on probation" at Wikipedia for trying to create a neutral article there about this.)<br />
<br />
:We should present all the arguments (like E. Scott's) against; but also all the arguments for. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::The "old" version - ''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation''<br />
<br />
::This begs the question - ''why'' is the question of who/what the intelligent designer "not accessible" by scientific investigation? If it is a space alien why could science not investigate it? That "old" version does not make a lick of sense. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 13:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Perhaps science has been defined so as to exclude consideration supernatural causes. But the [[scientific method]] as I originally learned it in school had no such limitation. It might be more accurate to say that [[physical science]] looks only at the [[natural world]] seen as being governed by [[natural law]]. <br />
<br />
:Scientific methods of investigation can be (and have been) used to examine the supernatural. I believe [[Harry Houdini]] spent a lot of time on this, revealing fraudulant [[spiritualist]]s and [[medium]]s who conducted fake [[seance]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Fraudulent spiritualists and mediums are in no way supernatural. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
User:Order, in answer to your Kitzmiller trap question, I like the old version of the statement<br />
:''The theory on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation.'' for the reason stated below.<br />
<br />
It offers the reason why ID proponents make no attempt to identity the designer or to learn anything about the abilities, motives or mechanisms used by the designer or designers. If ID proponents openly discussed the nature of the designer (who they generally believe to be God), it would be obvious to everybody that ID is just a new form of creation science. I think the reader should be informed of this reason because it is an important aspect of ID. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:12, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Can you supply a source for this assertion? Who (besides you) makes this argument? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:17, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Sure, Ed. Although many prominent pro-evolution figures in the evolution creation debate believe ID is a new form of creationism, the only source I could easily find was Barbara Forrest’s expert report used in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial. I couldn’t find a copy online, but here is a part of the first paragraph.<br />
<br />
::"ID's rejection of naturalism in any form logically entails its appeal to the only alternative, supernaturalism, as a putatively scientific explanation for the natural phenomena. This makes ID a religious belief. In addition, my research reveals that ID is not science, but the newest variant of traditional American creationism. With only a few exceptions, it continues the usual complaints of creationists against the theory of evolution and comprises virtually all the elements of traditional creationism."<br />
<br />
::[[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:09, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Oops! Somehow I turned on this boxed format. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 18:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
User:Miles, it’s true that it would be within the realm of science to investigate a space alien designer, but no prominent proponent of ID believes the designer is an alien. Nearly all of them believe it is God who is clearly supernatural.<br />
<br />
It does no good to say the designer is a space alien. If said alien possessed any irreducibly complex systems, such as an eye or immune system, then it too could not evolve through natural processes alone. You then have to investigate who designed the alien. Eventually you are trying to investigate a God. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 16:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think you are missing the point of ID's deliberate lack of identification of a designer. It makes an argument, based on [[irreducible complexity]], that life shows signs of having been designed. It stops there, because of legal requirements.<br />
<br />
:You seem to be saying (along with E. Scott) that ID advocates' motivation for advancing this scientific argument is "part and parcel" of the theory; and that therefore it is a religious argument and/or religous theory. Is this what you are saying?<br />
<br />
:::My point is to say the identity of the desiner is off limits to science is irrational and therefore does not belong in the article. Now, if they have proven the identity is supernatural or a diety, that might be different but so far those claims have not been proven. Otherwise you're basically saying "what goes up must come down, but it is beyond the realm of science to explain 'why'". it is also kind of crazy to suggest "I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science" [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::In answer to your first statement: The existence of a designer is a part of the IC argument. It says natural evolution couldn’t do it so the designer did it. I don’t understand what you mean by “It stops there, because of legal requirements.” I think they stop there because acknowledging the supernatural nature of the designer makes it clear that ID is essentially religious. <br />
<br />
::::In answer to you second statement: Yes. Since they specifically say that a supernatural designer (God), created the eye, the immune system, etc., ID falls outside realm of science. See my above quote from Barbara Forrest in my previous comment.<br />
<br />
::::In answer to your third statement: I agree with you. It’s unscientific to say the designer is off limits to science. Nobody can scientifically prove the existence, or non existence, of a deity. I also agree that it makes no sense to say “I have a scientific theory that is beyond the realm of science”. However I am not the one saying that. Footnote 2 in the Intelligent Design article refers to an IDEA website. They are supporters of ID and they say this under Actual Arguments of Leading ID Proponents. <blockquote>“The consensus of ID proponents is intelligent design theory does not allow one to identify the designer as natural or supernatural, because to do so would go beyond the limits of scientific inquiry.”</blockquote> ID proponents make this statement even though this designer is required to make systems that are Irreducibly Complex, and it is acknowledged by some ID theorists that the designer is supernatural.<br />
<br />
::::If the opponents of ID said the designer is beyond the limits of scientific inquiry, I would agree that that statement should be in Criticism of ID section. Since it's the proponents saying this, it is appropriate to put it in the main part of the article.<br />
<br />
::::When I read User:Order’s comment about which statement he thought should be in the article, wrote a comment expressing preference for the first one. I didn’t intend for it to turn into a debate.<br />
<br />
::::I agree with User:Ed Poor that there should be a separate section in the ID article about the criticisms and controversy surrounding ID.<br />
<br />
::::I'm getting better at formatting now. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 20:26, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I am not married to the statement that the identity of the designer cannot be known. My point is that the article should not say that intelligent design, or intelligent design theorists, say that the intelligent cause is God. First. because they don't say it, they are carefully not saying it. Because they would otherwise fall into the Kitzmiller trap. Not sure if Conservapedia wants that during the next Dover trial the Kitzmillers point to Conserapedia and say: "Look even Conservapedia says it is religion. " [[User:Orer]] 31 March<br />
<br />
:Please don't mingle the presentation of the theory with the dismantling or criticism of the theory. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:30, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: It was about the presentation all the time. [[User:Order]] 2 April<br />
<br />
==Non-biological Intelligent Design==<br />
I'm not a subject expert, so I'll help as best I can. But is Intelligent Design a theory that stands in opposition to Evolution? Does Intelligent Design attempt to explain the order that is found in the highest and lowest ends of our percerption? In other words, who designed the subatomic particles that are busy doing their thing so that I can exist? What about the galaxies? What part of Intelligent Design is philosophy and what part is science?<br />
<br />
==Objections to ID==<br />
<br />
<br />
Advocates of [[methodological naturalism]], vigorously oppose ID theory. Particular opposition comes from proponents of the materialistic [[Theory of evolution]]. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php] <br />
<br />
A sticking point for many of these opponents that ID leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open. Some arguments against ID are:<br />
#that there could not be a designer without an [[infinite regress]] of designers.<br />
#that it is illegitimate for ID proponents to conceal their religious beliefs about the Intelligent Designer<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1341]. However, some proponents admit to believing the intelligent cause to be [[God]]. <br />
----<br />
The above was cut from the intro (by me). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think a page devoted to Intelligent Design should at least discuss the main objection to ID (that I can see) which is that the supposedly intelligent designer included so many design flaws (eg the vertebrate eye). [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::It of course makes sense to include some of the objections if an idea/theory/thought is controversial. However, it's very important to keep the controversy separate from the presentation of the idea. Furthermore, this article should not evolve into an attempt to prove or disprove the theory. This should be a starting point for those who wish to research the idea further. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 06:52, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I agree, Everwill, there should be a neutral, straight forward presentation of the theory. Criticisms should be in a separate section of the article. I also believe it would be good to have a standard template for articles about scientific theories. It could include, but not be limited to, sections describing the theory, history of the theory, and criticisms of the theory. <br />
<br />
:::I don't know if this type of format will succeed at Conservapedia. Have you seen the article on The Theory of Evolution? What to you think of that format? [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:40, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Ed, I think another objection that should be in a Criticisms section of this article is the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists, not only in the United States, but worldwide don't accept the validity of ID theory.<br />
<br />
::I stated my opinion about an appropriate format for articles about scientific theories. However, if the format and style used in the current version of the Theory of Evolution article remains as it is, then perhaps it should also apply to this article for the sake of consistency. [[User:Land Dweller|Land Dweller]] 14:55, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for that valuable feedback. I left a note on your talk page, and I started [[Template:Scientific theory]] for you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==is the watch analogy useful or misleading?==<br />
<br />
I wonder if the watch analogy is useful or possibly instead misleading. A watch is not a biological entity nor does it reproduce. It reminds me of the Mount Rushmore analogy. Those seem like overly simplistic analogies and I wonder if some readers might find that insulting. I think there are better examples or analogies that those two. Just my opinion. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:22, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think the watch analogy works better for debunking the Big Bang, rather than evolution.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::How about the Rosetta Stone, [[Stonehenge]], and the statues on Easter Island? Aren't they indicative of human influence, i.e., don't they show signs of having been designed? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::I don't agree with the watch analogy - at all - but I think it works as a statement of intent. It gets the idea across quickly and concisely; it's perfectly serviceable. (I'm not sure where you're going with the Rosetta Stone, et al, argument there Ed, though I am curious to find out). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:34, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::A watch is an obvious example of human design (and note no one claims we cannot identify the identity of the watch making intelligent designer) but a watch is not a biological entity and I believe ID argues for a designer of biological entity. I'm not wanting to debate or cause a stir, it just seems overly simplistic and is not comparing apples with apples yet it implies the opposite. If you are in a watch making factory and see a stray cat in the warehouse do you assume a human designer as you do with the watches? <br />
<br />
::::When I read the watch analogy my reaction was sort of "who are you trying to fool?" (and I believe in ID). I wish we had something better to use but I don't have any suggestions yet. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 16:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Is the point not that the "great designer", or whatever it is to be called, is infinitely more powerful/intelligent than mankind and as such is capable of infinitely greater complexity of construction? Our puny earthling brains cannot comprehend the intelligence behind the design involved in the universe and so we need to reduce the argument to something which we can relate to comfortably. How are we supposed to understand something (even the idea behind it) if we can't contextualise the argument to something more suiting our own intelligences? We can conceive of designing and creating a watch. The "great designer" is infinitely greater than us, therefore he could conceive of and create the universe. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 16:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::When you add what you said Airdish, with "The hypothesis on intelligent design leaves the identity of the intelligent cause open, since this question is not accessible by scientific investigation" I get even more unanswered questions. Anyhow, the watch analogy bothers me but it does not bother anyone else and I am cool with that. Thanks for everyone's opinions. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::For me, that's the fundamental problem with ID: Who is the Intelligent Designer? It seems that it still requires a leap of faith and a belief in a higher power. Which, to me, is indistinguishable from religion. I should probably stop now, I'm not here to try to convince you or anyone else away from ID. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:38, 3 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well I am not a fan of what I would call the modern intelligent design movement, at least not the version being sold by the [[Discovery Institute]]. Before they came along I and millions of others already know who created the Heavens and Earth and I don't need their "theories" or bacteria speak to justify my faith. So their "it could be a space alien" and "you cannot say or talk about the intelligent designer, but ID is science and not faith" is all less than honest hogwash to me. They claim it could be a space man but the seconed you point out the Raelians truly believe they are in contact with space men they clam up. I am not a Raelian nor do I think the Raelians are on to something, I am just making a point of how absurd some of the modern intelligent design movement leaders claims are. Obviously the "it could be a space alien" is not meant to be taken seriously. But it makes them famous and lines their pockets with plenty of gold so oh well. I just hope the article accurately describes ID without using their clever and less than honest portrayals and arguments. If you believe God created All, why not just say it in the first place is what I have to say to the modern ID movement. But this article sure is better than the Wiki article. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 17:47, 4 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::: There are two things that strike me about the watch analogy. (1) It contains no references, and (2) It is completely fallacious. The watch 'analogy' only makes sense from the premise of a belief in Intelligent Design. If you follow the logic of Evolution, then it is entirely possible for an evolutionary process to come up with something at least as complex as a watch. [[Richard Dawkins]] in [[Climbing Mount Improbable]] provided many such examples of how evolutionary processes could lead to highly complex and organised systems. Thisnk about the following argument: I believe that the moon is made of cheese, whereas scientists say it is not. However, the moon looks like it is made of cheese, and everything which I have ever seen which are round an pock-marked have all been cheese. Therefore the moon must be made of cheese despite what the scientists say. See - it's complete nonsense. --[[User:CatWatcher|CatWatcher]] 18:00, 4 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Here, Hear==<br />
I hope it's not a waste of bandwidth, but I just want to praise the format of this [[Intelligent_Design|article]]. I have no idea if the content is any good or not, but this should be a template for all controversial subjects. I bashed my brains out at Wikipedia arguing --- not for or against Intelligent Design --- but for something resembling readable and fair. I can't shower you with enough praise for taking this simple and adult stance. I doesn't matter if Intelligent Design is baloney or not. (Let the reader make up his own mind ... because he already has made it up anyway.) <br />
<br />
State the premise. Seperate the discourse into pro's and con's and move on. No more tears. Perfect. Thank you for drawing breath. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:16, 4 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Creationist vs. Scientists ==<br />
Suggest that you add to the begining: The problem between the two sides may be largely a matter of semantics. What scientists call the Universal Force, we call God. What we call Intelligent Design they call Chaos Theory.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't think so. God is interventionist, has a plan, and his own mind. 'Forces' work determistic. I doubt that you want to constrain God to be deterministic. There would be nothing left. [[User:Order]] 6 April, 11:05 (AEST)<br />
<br />
::The Universal Force is simply the energy that brought forth the universe. Chaos Theory is the idea that what appears to be chaos has a clear pattern. Everything interacts. It is not deterministic.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 10:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: For a start: 'Force' and 'energy' is something different. But that's aside. Forces are deterministic, and chaos, according to Chaos theory, actually as well. Chaos theory says that you cannot predict the behavior, if you allow for inaccurate measurements, but it doesn't say that its non-deterministic or probabilistic. 'The energy that brought forth the universe' is at best a deistic belief, since it doesn't need an interventionist god. At worst it is just a curently unexplained physical force, like the weak electromagnetic force was hundered years ago. Not sure if you feel worshipping such a force; and you obey its laws if you believe in it or not. [[User:Order]] 9 April, 20:45 (AEST)<br />
<br />
::::In science the Universal Force is the energy that brought forth the Universe. In this case force does means energy and energy is not deterministic. If science would admit to a deistic god that would be a start but my question would then be if there is'nt an interventionist god who broke the Universal Force into the strong force, weak force, and electromagnitism.Chaos theory has also not been shown to to deterministic. For science to say that we should not believe in God but in the Universal Force is just semantics.--[[User:Mike M|Mike M]] 11:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::*What broke up the forces? The expanding universe did, afaik. And that happened at at an exact size and an exact temperature of the universe, that can be computed from quantum physics. The force had no choice other than break apart. <br />
:::*Chaos theory is a theory that studies the behavior of deterministic functions. However, these deterministic functions are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions. It might look non-deterministic, but it isn't. <br />
:::*Calling God a force is actually just a bit short of atheism. Why would you worship a 'force'? Or believe in a 'force'? If you belief or not doesn't matter for a 'force'. How would you feel if you would find a tribe that worships magnetism?<br />
:::*'Energy' is something different than 'force'. They are two different words, meaning something different. Your 'force'-speak sounds very much like New Age and Star Wars. Maybe that's what attracts you to it. But it's weasel language blurring the important difference between force and energy, and obscuring the deterministic nature of both. [[User:Order]] 10 April, 11:15 (AEST)<br />
<br />
==Statements and Analogies==<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] the first block quote (Paley) has some stucktogether words in it. HTH. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]</sub> 00:11, 7 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)conservative<br />
<br />
==Behe==<br />
<br />
Where it says: <br />
<br />
One of the first major books with evidence for intelligent design was Michael Behe's.<br />
<br />
We should probably specify which book of Behe's this is. There's a reference to Darwin's Black Box in the next sentence, but it's not clear in context whether it's that book or not, and if I remember correctly, that may not have been his first book. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:18, 25 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Please add a sentence to the section on opposition: ==<br />
<br />
I would like to add a sentence to opposition:<br />
<br />
:Critics of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in public schools have long argued that it is unscientific because no intelligent design paper had been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, after Richard von Sternberg managed the peer review process and published a paper by Intelligent Design researcher [[Stephen C. Meyer]], scietists at the Smithsonian Institution retaliated in what is known as the [[Smithsonian Controversy]].<br />
<br />
Of course, the sentece could be reworked as necessary.[[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 22:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== List is not needed given category ==<br />
<br />
Please change '''List of Intelligent Design Theorists''' to [[:Category:Intelligent design theorists]] (please look at source to see proper way to link). The list page is only linked from this page. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I think it is an added help to the article and no harm is done. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:02, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: The category has all the information the list does, and is updated automatically as new items are added to the category. The list requires manual updates. If that page (too) becomes protected, then all the work needs to be done by sysops. As it is, the list page has two links on it, making it rather, well, useless. If nothing else, the link to the category should be provided in addition to the list. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:22, 17 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== I just came from wiki ==<br />
<br />
I cannot believe how biased their ID article is. And I am not a conservative. However in many areas this site is much more accurate. [[User:ProtoCat|ProtoCat]] 12:25, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I just came from there too and it gives a FULL discussion of ID and the issues surrounding it.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:39, 21 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Fascinating... ==<br />
Apparently, there are [http://www.caidweb.org/blog/ conservatives against intelligent design]. Who knew? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 18:13, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Not all conservatives are willing to ignore or attempt to discredit things we seen as being anti-conservative. I don't see how so many people seem to view evolution as liberal and anti-christian. There are plenty of conservative christians who recognize the significance of evolution and realize that it does not go against their beliefs. I learned evolution in a Catholic school and somehow have managed to keep my faith and remain a Christian. --[[User:TheGoodSociety|UPOD]] 13:23, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My wife remembers being tought about evolution by a nun(who didn't bat an eye) in a Catholic school in Colombia.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 00:43, 21 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: And who taught the nun? The [[Catholic Church]] expressly forbids any teaching evolution as it is commonly taught because it contradicts one Adam. See [[Humani Generis]]. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:58, 21 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Needed Entry == <br />
There should be an entry in this article (in the interest of objectivity and facts) about president Bush's science advisor. Professor Marburger has stated that intelligent design is not science.<br />
<br />
==A new year of encyclopedia building==<br />
<br />
This article has been locked for 9 months. I don't think I need to ask anybody to unlock it, but any sysop thinks there's a problem go ahead and reprotect it.<br />
<br />
I've opened discussions with two Wikipedians about the objections to intelligent design and have gotten some very illuminating answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Identity_of_the_designer here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_designer#Design_and_the_designer here].<br />
<br />
Not only do evolutionists believe that natural forces alone are sufficient to explain "the gradual appearance of new forms of life", but they also see ID in terms of a [[strategy]] or [[campaign]] to introduce [[Creationism]] into U.S. public school biology courses. <br />
<br />
Plainly there is much hostility toward religion in America, and any excuse to keep it out will be employed. It's not just about science, but about the liberal movement toward secularism. The idea that God and religion can coexist with materialism is certainly not accepted by liberals. I'm not even sure how many conservatives think coexistence is possible. A lot of Christians would like to see schools teach that God exists, the He is the source of moral and ethical rules (or values), and so on. <br />
<br />
The stakes are pretty high here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:46, 1 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Cdesign proponentsists==<br />
<br />
I would like to include mention of the term [[Cdesign proponentsists]] under the opposition. It was a term coined during the Dover case as a strong piece of evidence against the legitimacy of ID. I believe that including external links for new users gets me banned, so please google the term if you are unclear about its meaning.--[[User:Gman2|Gman2]] 18:03, 4 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Implications==<br />
<br />
It's not possible to discuss ID or evolution without considering the implications. The clear implication of naturalistic evolution is that "forms of life came into being with God". In fact, 15% of Americans believe just that. The other 85% believe either that God caused the forms of life to come into being gradually, or that he created it all a few thousand years ago. <br />
<br />
The [[Origins dispute]] covers this in more detail (or it should). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 12:16, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
==The International Society for Science and Religion==<br />
<blockquote><br />
The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.<br />
<br />
The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”<br />
</blockquote> <br />
Just thought I should mention this.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 20:45, 16 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Expelled==<br />
Does this article need mention Ben Stien's instant classic: [http://www.expelledthemovie.com/ Expelled] [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 21:00, 19 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sure: how about a 'see also' link at the end? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 21:14, 19 April 2008 (EDT)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Chick&diff=449798Talk:Jack Chick2008-05-08T21:24:05Z<p>Scorpion: /* Cool? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Love him, hate him...those tracts were ALWAYS the bestest. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 23:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I read my first one at a campground near Bar Harbor when I was a kid. I thought it was simultaneously cool and ridiculous. It was the Rapture one, where they declare One Church, the Pope is a tool of the Devil, and the little kid rats out his grandfather for being a Christian. Love love LOVE those things.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I first came across them in high school when I was volunteering at a soup kitchen in Denver that was handing them out. They had the "this was your life" one, which isn't especially controversial. I didn't realize until later just how controversial some of his tracts are. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I was linked to one during a session of debate on IRC - we were making fun of the way he invaraiably shows pro-evolution teachers as wrinkly, old, crabby, irritable and aggressive. His tracts are highly entertaining, but I wouldn't think such shallow arguments make effective evangelism. He basicly just repeats 'Join us or go to hell' in different variations. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
But that's the way it is! "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Are you gonna call Jesus a liar? He's the Son of God!! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 16:10, 7 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Cool? ==<br />
<br />
I saw a cool comment was made in regards to this guys work and I admit to being baffled. I think the guy is a crackpot but hey, this is America and he is entitled to his opinion, as long as he isn't inciting violence or a restriction of lifestyle against others. Wait, he probably is doing that. <br />
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 19:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, all fundamentalists are going to be viewed as such by intolerant liberals. I think this guy is right-on. If you don't accept Jesus alone as salvation, you're not going to be saved! It's pretty simple, it is. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 11:28, 4 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::But Jesus Christ did not support legalism, which is what the pharisees, and this guy, believe in. I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but is that a reason to depict them burning? Win people over with love, not fear. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:21, 27 April 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my radical acceptance of his views. I don't endorse the "Join me or go to hell and burn forever and ever!" evangelism (I don't even view hell as fire, see Tektonics' article [http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html here]. Plus he views the KJV as the "only" true version of the Bible, which is totally whacked-out! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 17:24, 8 May 2008 (EDT)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Josephus&diff=449294Josephus2008-05-08T03:18:50Z<p>Scorpion: /* Writings */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Flavius Josephus''' 37 - 101 A.D. [[Jewish]] general and historian who took part in the Jewish revolt against the [[Romans]] and later worked for a Roman patron. Josephus would become close friends with the emperors [[Vespasian]] and [[Titus]], taking their family name, Flavius. Josephus born into a priestly family and a descendant of the [[Hasmoneans]], was well educated and at age 19 became a [[Pharisee]].<br />
<br />
==Writings==<br />
A prolific writer, Josephus' works not only include his own biography but also ''The Antiquities of the Jews'' and ''The Wars of the Jews''. His writings, especially concerning events of the first century, are considered of particular interest as they provide extra-biblical references to key events recorded in the Bible and are considered to provide additional insight into Jewish thought, background and history of the ancient world.<br />
<br />
:'''The Antiquities of the Jews''' Is Josephus' recounting of Jewish history from Creation to first-century Roman Procurator Florus in a total of 20 books, broken into a number of chapters. The ''Jewish Encyclopedia'' indicates that it was Josephus' motive in writing the history was to both glorify the Jewish people and their history in the eyes of the Greco-Roman world and to counteract what he considered to be false histories being circulated that degraded the Jewish nation.<br />
<br />
:Surviving early copies and translations of his writings make some references to the life and death of [[Jesus Christ]], [[John the Baptist]] and Jesus' brother [[James the Just]].<br />
<br />
:A few modern scholars are skeptical of the passages in Josephus' writings that refer to Jesus, believing they were inserted by copyists during the middle ages. While the longer passage (the "Testimonium Flavium") most probably contains at least a few interpolations, the passage for the most part is considered genuine by most scholars. A copy of the Testimonium was found in Agapian that contained no signs of interpolation. The citation about John the Baptist, and about James the brother of Jesus, are considered to be genuine. <br />
<br />
::†The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3.3.63-64; Chapter 5.2.116-118; Chapter 9.1.200.<br />
<br />
:'''The Wars of the Jews''' provides a general history of Jewish warfare and contains 7 books, broken into a number of chapters. The history covers the time from Anitochus Ephiphanes taking Jerusalem during the time of the [[Maccabees]] to the taking of Jerusalem by [[Titus]] to the sedition of the Jews at Cyrene.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times,Peter Lang Publishing (2003). <br />
*William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. (1987)<br />
*[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=543&letter=J&search=josephus Jewish Encyclopedia: Josephus]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Military Commanders]][[Category:Historians]][[Category:Christianity]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Internet_Infidels&diff=445038Talk:Internet Infidels2008-05-02T20:51:39Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>==History==<br />
Shows that this hasn't been a vandal magnet; why is it protected? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:08, 15 March 2008 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:They probably anticipated loads of vandalism and decided to block it before it started. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 16:51, 2 May 2008 (EDT)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Josephus&diff=410938Josephus2008-03-22T19:30:57Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Flavius Josephus''' 37 - 101 A.D. [[Jewish]] general and historian who took part in the Jewish revolt against the [[Romans]] and later worked for a Roman patron. Josephus would become close friends with the emperors [[Vespasian]] and [[Titus]], taking their family name, Flavius. Josephus born into a priestly family and a descendant of the [[Hasmoneans]], was well educated and at age 19 became a [[Pharisee]].<br />
<br />
==Writings==<br />
A prolific writer, Josephus' works not only include his own biography but also ''The Antiquities of the Jews'' and ''The Wars of the Jews''. His writings, especially concerning events of the first century, are considered of particular interest as they provide extra-biblical references to key events recorded in the Bible and are considered to provide additional insight into Jewish thought, background and history of the ancient world.<br />
<br />
:'''The Antiquities of the Jews''' Is Josephus' recounting of Jewish history from Creation to first-century Roman Procurator Florus in a total of 20 books, broken into a number of chapters. The ''Jewish Encyclopedia'' indicates that it was Josephus' motive in writing the history was to both glorify the Jewish people and their history in the eyes of the Greco-Roman world and to counteract what he considered to be false histories being circulated that degraded the Jewish nation.<br />
<br />
:Surviving early copies and translations of his writings make some references to the life and death of [[Jesus Christ]], [[John the Baptist]] and Jesus' brother [[James]]†.<br />
<br />
:A few modern scholars are skeptical of the passages in Josephus' writings that refer to Jesus, believing they were inserted by copyists during the middle ages. The citation about John the Baptist, and about James the brother of Jesus, are considered to be genuine. <br />
<br />
::†The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3.3.63-64; Chapter 5.2.116-118; Chapter 9.1.200.<br />
<br />
:'''The Wars of the Jews''' provides a general history of Jewish warfare and contains 7 books, broken into a number of chapters. The history covers the time from Anitochus Ephiphanes taking Jerusalem during the time of the [[Maccabees]] to the taking of Jerusalem by [[Titus]] to the sedition of the Jews at Cyrene.<br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
*Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times,Peter Lang Publishing (2003). <br />
*William Whiston, The Works of Josephus, Complete and Unabridged, Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. (1987)<br />
*[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=543&letter=J&search=josephus Jewish Encyclopedia: Josephus]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Military Commanders]][[Category:Historians]][[Category:Christianity]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sam_Harris&diff=399829Sam Harris2008-03-06T18:22:04Z<p>Scorpion: New page: '''Sam Harris''' is an American author and atheist. He wrote two controversial works, ''The End of Faith'' and ''Letter to a Christian Nation''.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Sam Harris''' is an [[American]] author and atheist. He wrote two controversial works, ''The End of Faith'' and ''Letter to a Christian Nation''.</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TerryH&diff=388896User talk:TerryH2008-02-16T15:12:28Z<p>Scorpion: /* CreationWiki */</p>
<hr />
<div>Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]<br />
<br />
== Administrative Office ==<br />
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
Terry,<br />
<br />
Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 66.212.16.194 ==<br />
<br />
I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==<br />
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reply ==<br />
<br />
Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|<font color="#ff0000">Angry</font><font color="#000000">Communist</font>]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Explain what? Do you deny it?<br />
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?<br />
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.<br />
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Schlafly ==<br />
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
==Help!==<br />
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== CreationWiki ==<br />
<br />
Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Headline text ==<br />
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hai ==<br />
<br />
Terry,<br />
<br />
Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!<br />
<br />
In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.<br />
<br />
Also, consider archiving those two pages.<br />
<br />
You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.<br />
<br />
By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.<br />
<br />
Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
-Hojimachong</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TerryH&diff=388892User talk:TerryH2008-02-16T15:00:45Z<p>Scorpion: /* CreationWiki */</p>
<hr />
<div>Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]<br />
<br />
== Administrative Office ==<br />
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
Terry,<br />
<br />
Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 66.212.16.194 ==<br />
<br />
I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==<br />
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reply ==<br />
<br />
Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|<font color="#ff0000">Angry</font><font color="#000000">Communist</font>]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Explain what? Do you deny it?<br />
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?<br />
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.<br />
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Schlafly ==<br />
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
==Help!==<br />
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== CreationWiki ==<br />
<br />
Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Headline text ==<br />
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hai ==<br />
<br />
Terry,<br />
<br />
Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!<br />
<br />
In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.<br />
<br />
Also, consider archiving those two pages.<br />
<br />
You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.<br />
<br />
By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.<br />
<br />
Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
-Hojimachong</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TerryH&diff=388043User talk:TerryH2008-02-15T02:18:41Z<p>Scorpion: /* CreationWiki */</p>
<hr />
<div>Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]<br />
<br />
== Administrative Office ==<br />
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
Terry,<br />
<br />
Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 66.212.16.194 ==<br />
<br />
I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==<br />
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reply ==<br />
<br />
Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|<font color="#ff0000">Angry</font><font color="#000000">Communist</font>]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Explain what? Do you deny it?<br />
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?<br />
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.<br />
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Schlafly ==<br />
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
==Help!==<br />
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== CreationWiki ==<br />
<br />
Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Lee_Strobel&diff=387834Lee Strobel2008-02-14T14:55:22Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Lee Patrick Strobel''' is a former legal reporter for the Chicago Tribune and a Christian author. The basis for his 1981 journey from [[atheism]] to [[Christianity]] is discussed in his bestselling book ''The Case For Christ'' (Zondervan, 1998). After his wife had converted to Christianity, Strobel set out to disprove the faith, and instead became convinced by the evidence ''for'' it. He has expanded on this with other similarly themed [[Christian apologetics]] books such as ''The Case For Faith'' and ''The Case For a Creator''.<br />
<br />
Strobel was criticized by atheists for not interviewing any skeptics, but this is unsubstantiated because his interviews with believers were an attempt to undermine their faith.<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.leestrobel.com Lee Strobel's Website]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT: Strobel, Lee Patrick}}<br />
[[category:Authors]]<br />
[[category:Apologists]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TerryH&diff=387833User talk:TerryH2008-02-14T14:52:53Z<p>Scorpion: CreationWiki</p>
<hr />
<div>Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]<br />
<br />
== Administrative Office ==<br />
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
Terry,<br />
<br />
Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 66.212.16.194 ==<br />
<br />
I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==<br />
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reply ==<br />
<br />
Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|<font color="#ff0000">Angry</font><font color="#000000">Communist</font>]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Explain what? Do you deny it?<br />
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?<br />
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.<br />
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Schlafly ==<br />
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
==Help!==<br />
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== CreationWiki ==<br />
<br />
Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Divine_Comedy&diff=382747Divine Comedy2008-01-31T00:40:01Z<p>Scorpion: New page: '''''The Divine Comedy''''' is a famous epic poem, written by Dante Alighieri between 1308 and 1321. The poem takes the reader on a journey through the Christian view of the [[afte...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''The Divine Comedy''''' is a famous [[epic poem]], written by [[Dante Alighieri]] between 1308 and 1321. The poem takes the reader on a journey through the Christian view of the [[afterlife]], going through [[Hell]] (where the damned suffer for eternity), [[Purgatory]] (where the penitant are purged of their sins), and [[Heaven]] (where the saints dwell). <br />
<br />
{{stub}}</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Allah&diff=363376Allah2008-01-03T04:55:13Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Allah.png|thumb|right|200px|"Allah" in simple [[Arabic language|Arabic]] calligraphy. As with many religions, an image depicting God is strictly forbidden.]]<br />
The word '''Allah''' (الله) is the [[Arabic]] term for [[Elohim]]. <br> <br />
In [[Islam]], Allah is the essential personal name of God and comprises all His Beautiful Names (the [[99 Names of God]]). When Allah is said, the One, the Supreme Being, the Creator, the Owner, the Sustainer, the All-Powerful, the All-Knowing, the All-Encompassing, whose Names and Attributes are manifested in creation, comes to mind. This term also refers to His absolute Oneness as well as His having no internal defect or external partner.<br />
In [[Arabic]], the name is composed of four letters, ا ل ل ه (or Alif Lam Lam Ha) which when brought together make الله. [[Arab]] [[Christians]] believe that Allah consists of the Father, Son and Spirit, that together constitutes complete Allah.<br />
<br />
Allah was the name of the moon god of the pre-Islamic polytheistic religion.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Islam]]<br />
[[Category:Divine Beings]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletedpage&diff=358321Conservapedia talk:Deletedpage2007-12-26T17:19:01Z<p>Scorpion: /* Why? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== This page ==<br />
Andy just restored this page with the comment "''31 revisions restored: many pages link to this, so I don't think it should be deleted. Am I missing something?''".<br />
<br />
No, you are correct. This page is the destination of many redirects.<br />
<br />
If a page is deleted that we don't want recreated (offensive title, etc.), then the page is turned into a protected redirect to this article. This is because:<br />
* If the offending page is simply deleted, there is nothing stopping someone else recreating it.<br />
* If the offending page is simply emptied and protected, it will show up on the Random Page link, lists of uncategorised pages, etc. Making the page a redirect prevents these problems.<br />
* If the offending page is made a redirect and ''not'' protected, there is again nothing stopping someone else recreating it.<br />
<br />
NOTES:<br />
* Instead of simply deleting the offending page's content and making it a redirect, if the content was particularly offensive, it is best to delete the page itself, then create a new one of the same name as a redirect to this page.<br />
* If the title of the page is acceptable but the content is not, then deleting the page and ''not'' recreating/redirecting is better, as that then allows someone to recreate the page with legitimate content.<br />
* If ''this'' page (not this talk page, but [[Conservapedia:Deletedpage]]) (or any page) is deleted and restored, as has happened at least twice now, the protection is lost and has to be reapplied.<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Perhaps==<br />
'''Conservapedia:Deletedpage''' could be created in it's own namespace that doesn't show up in random page searches?<br />
#Create a namespace (DELETES or whatever)<br />
#Move Conservapedia:Deletedpage there<br />
#Protect same.<br />
#Tickle Mediawiki so DELETES doesn't show up in the database.<br />
[[User_talk:U2| U2]] 00:35, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't pages that link to Conservapedia:Deletedpage does show up in random page searches. Do you think they do?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:37, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I have seen them, but some pages don't link, they have a different template so maybe they are the ones. This one [http://www.conservapedia.com/Semen] is deleted but doesn't redirect. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:46, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Fixed by inserting #REDIRECT <<double-brackets here>>Conservapedia:Deletedpage<<double-brackets here>> . Thanks--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::It does now I see! [I wrote that prior to Andy's message above.] Yes, that one was done the old way (even though only done recently), where the page was protected and had a notice, but not redirected to this page. I don't think any redirect page shows up with the Random Page link (and that makes sense). And I think that only mainspace pages show up with the Random Page link, so this page, being in Conservapedia namespace, wouldn't show up that way either. But I could be corrected on that.<br />
:::In reply to U2, I think this solution that we have works well enough that it's not worth the bother of doing what you suggest. Of course, that's just my opinion.<br />
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:59, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
* I want you to know that I cannot make heads or tails of the above. Seems nothing has changed, eh? You wipe the contents, save it, protect it, edit it to add the redirect: conservapedia:deletedpage. Right? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 01:44, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Yes, that's about right, but I thought it needed explaining here, as this page itself keeps getting [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Conservapedia%3ADeletedpage deleted]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:47, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Yes! Because oftentimes, if one isn't paying enough attention, one is re-directed without noticing, and instead of wiping the pages contents, one deletes the deleted page! :P --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 01:51, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
*Another thought! If you or Ed fixed the bloody thing so that couldn't happen, it would be much better! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 01:53, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:: Now that you've reminded me about the accidental deletion, I recall you saying that. But I'm sure at least one time was not account that, but because the deleter didn't realise what the page was for. I don't know how the accidental deletion could be stopped from happening, though. But the other problem is remembering to reprotect it after restoring it. It was because of it not being reprotected after deletion that a vandal got to it recently. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Now I am even more confused, as Andy deleted a page, didn't use a redriect but only used text: <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
<div style="background-color: #eee; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;" class="plainlinks">'''This page has been ''deleted'' and ''protected'' to prevent re-creation'''<br />
<br />
'''Click on the logo to return to the Main Page'''</div><br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
Why not the redirect? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:11, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I think that the ones without the redirect are the ones that show up when one clicks random page. I prefer the redirect. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]<br />
<br />
:The one that Bohdan queried above was the same, but Andy's now changed it to a redirect, so my guess is simply using the old way out of habit (assuming it's something done recently). You didn't say where this happened. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:25, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::*So we really should be using the redirect? Its easier to type. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]<br />
<br />
*Andy just used the text tonight! [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&action=history]] My head is really beginning to ache! And Bohdan, that IM, supposedly mine, isn't. Turn on your AIM ;-) --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:28, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'll stick with my answer above. Here's a timeline (my timezone):<br />
:* 14:40 Andy uses a text version of deleted page (as you mentioned) <br />
:* 14:49 Bohdan posts (above) an example of one that doesn't redirect.<br />
:* 14:50 Andy changes Bohdan's example text-only one to a redirect.<br />
:* 14:54 Andy posts (above) that he's done that change to Bohdan's example page.<br />
:So Andy's last instance was of using a redirect. He used the text-only version ''before'' this discussion brought the issue to his attention.<br />
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Well, okay, however what the last version is, is: <br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
Current revision (20:40, 20 July 2007) (edit) (undo)<br />
Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) [rollback]<br />
<br />
<br />
Line 1: Line 1: <br />
- {{Deletedpage}} + <div style="background-color: #eee; border: 1px solid #aa8; margin: 0.5em; padding: 0.5em;" class="plainlinks">'''This page has been ''deleted'' and ''protected'' to prevent re-creation''' <br />
<br />
'''Click on the logo to return to the Main Page'''</div><br />
</blockquote> <br />
Just text, no redirect. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 03:30, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Yes, that one is. The timeline above refers to two different pages; the one that Andy altered at 14:40, and the other which Bhodan raised and which Andy altered at 14:50. See Bohdan's link above. You have quoted the last version of the page you linked to; I'm quoting a different one that Andy changed ten minutes later. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:22, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Why?==<br />
Can someone please explain why this page was deleted in the first place? And please don't tell me the non-existence of vulvas is your right as an American. ;-p [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 18:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:Which page?<br />
:There are quite a few pages that have been deleted for which we don't want those pages/topics recreated, so they are recreated as protected redirects to this page.<br />
:One reason is that we consider some topics inappropriate for a family-friendly encyclopaedia.<br />
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:15, 12 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Maybe we could use such a page to help parents teach their kids about sexuality? It needn't be family unfriendly, you know. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 12:19, 26 December 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Book_of_Revelation&diff=355165Book of Revelation2007-12-19T22:32:21Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Book of Revelation''' (formal title '''The Revelation of St. John the Divine''', also called '''The Revelation to John''', '''The Apocalypse of John''', or simply '''Revelation''') is the final book of the [[Christian]] [[Bible]] (The [[New Testament]]). It records a series visions received by the apostle John while he was imprisoned on the island of Patmos. The visions describe the end times and the second coming of [[Jesus Christ]].<br />
<br />
Revelation also describes the final rebellion of [[Satan]] (at [[Armageddon]]), the final defeat of Satan by [[God]], and the return of peace to the world.<br />
<br />
===Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse===<br />
Revelation first describes the arrival of the [[Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse]]: Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death. However, the Bible itself only directly names the fourth horseman, "death".<br />
<br />
===Mark of the Beast===<br />
Revelation describes a time in which the a mark consisting of the [[Number of the Beast]] will be required on all people in order to buy or sell.<br />
<br />
===Plagues===<br />
<br />
Twenty-one judgements are pronounced on the earth: the seven Seal Judgements, the seven Trumpet Judgements, and the seven Bowl Judgements.<br />
<br />
[[Category:New Testament]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Apocrypha&diff=352304Apocrypha2007-12-14T18:50:40Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Apocrypha''' refers to books of the Bible that are not considered part of the Biblical Canon - precisely which books varies between denominations.<br />
<br />
The Protestant canon was formulated by [[Martin Luther]], the Catholic by the [[Council of Trent]]. The [[Catholic Church]] includes the Apocrypha as part of the [[Old Testament]] and accepts those books as scripture. For some time the [[King James Bible]] contained apocryphal books in a separate section. The [[Episcopal Church]] includes the books of the Apocrypha in the cycle of scripture readings in its services, but holds that the apocryphal books are useful for study and edification, but not for doctrine. Most Protestant churches do not use the Apocrypha as scripture at all.<br />
<br />
Books apocryphal to the Protestant canon include:<br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Book of Tobit]]<br />
*[[Book of Judith]]<br />
*[[Book of Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach<br />
*[[Book of Baruch]]<br />
*[[Epistle of Jeremy]]<br />
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]<br />
*[[Story of Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
*Plus additions to the Book of Esther<br />
<br />
Western art continued to make reference to Apocryphal subjects long after they were deemed apocryphal - the story of [[Judith]] and [[Holophernes]] was popular with painters, whilst [[Handel]] wrote an opera, [[Judas Maccabeus]] based on the books of [[Maccabees]].<br />
<br />
There are also a number of apocryphal books which are not included in the Catholic Bible either. These include, for example, the [[Book of Enoch]] and the [[Book of Jubilees]] from the Old Testament period, and the [[Didache]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]] from the New Testament period. These books were of disputed status in the early Church as to whether they were scriptural or not, and were rejected by the Council of Trent. The Early Church fathers were concerned only with books relevant to the Christian faith, books which concerned salvation and growing in the Lord.<br />
<br />
[[category:book]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Apocrypha&diff=352303Apocrypha2007-12-14T18:50:06Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Apocrypha''' refers to books of the Bible that are not considered part of the Biblical Canon - precisely which books varies between denominations.<br />
<br />
The Protestant canon was formulated by [[Martin Luther]], the Catholic by the [[Council of Trent]]. The [[Catholic Church]] includes the Apocrypha as part of the [[Old Testament]] and accepts those books as scripture. For some time the [[King James Bible]] contained apocryphal books in a separate section. The [[Episcopal Church]] includes the books of the Apocrypha in the cycle of scripture readings in its services, but holds that the apocryphal books are useful for study and edification, but not for doctrine. Most Protestant churches do not use the Apocrypha as scripture at all.<br />
<br />
Books apocryphal to the Protestant canon include:<br />
*[[1 Esdras]]<br />
*[[2 Esdras]]<br />
*[[Book of Tobit]]<br />
*[[Book of Judith]]<br />
*[[Book of Wisdom]]<br />
*[[Ecclesiasticus]], also known as Sirach<br />
*[[Book of Baruch]]<br />
*[[Epistle of Jeremy]]<br />
*[[The Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Holy Children]]<br />
*[[Story of Susanna]]<br />
*[[Bel and the Dragon]]<br />
*[[Prayer of Manasseh]]<br />
*[[1 Maccabees]]<br />
*[[2 Maccabees]]<br />
*Plus additions to the Book of Esther<br />
<br />
Western art continued to make reference to Apocryphal subjects long after they were deemed apocryphal - the story of [[Judith]] and [[Holophernes]] was popular with painters, whilst [[Handel]] wrote an opera, [[Judas Maccabeus]] based on the books of [[Maccabees]].<br />
<br />
There are also a number of apocryphal books which are not included in the Catholic Bible either. These include, for example, the [[Book of Enoch]] and the [[Book of Jubilees]] from the Old Testament period, and the [[Didache]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]] from the New Testament period. These books were of disputed status in the early Church as to whether they were scriptural or not, and were rejected by the Council of Trent. The Council was concerned only with books relevant to the Christian faith, books which concerned salvation and growing in the Lord.<br />
<br />
[[category:book]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Freemasonry&diff=351322Freemasonry2007-12-13T02:48:13Z<p>Scorpion: /* Beliefs */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Mason.jpg|right]]<br />
'''Freemasonry''' is a [[fraternity|fraternal]] organization, that is, an organisation for men, with a worldwide membership of around 3 million. Local branches are called 'lodges', and the members meet together and perform rituals teaching moral truths, similar to short plays, based on [[Bible|Biblical]] imagery mostly concerned with the building of [[Solomon]]'s temple in [[Jerusalem]]. <br />
<br />
Perhaps the best-known Freemasons are the [[Shriners]], who raise funds for children's hospitals and other charities.<br />
<br />
Membership dues can vary widely between jurisdictions and individual lodges. Meals are often eaten before or after meetings. Lodges also frequently raise money for [[charity]].<br />
<br />
== Beliefs ==<br />
The central tenets of Freemasonry are: <br />
*Brotherly Love - the regard men have for each other;<br />
*Relief - relieving the necessities and destitution a man sees around him (charity);<br />
*Truth - being true to himself, his brother Masons, and others around him.<br />
<br />
The most recognisable symbol of Freemasonry is the "Square and Compasses", which are used to teach respectively "square conduct towards others" and "keeping passions and prejudices within due bounds".<br />
<br />
For most jurisdictions of Freemasonry there is a rule that the members must believe in a [[god]] or supreme being, who is sometime poetically called 'The Great [[Architect]] of the [[Universe]]'.<br />
<br />
Contrary to popular belief, Freemasons are not taught to 'prefer' other Masons or to do them special favors.<br />
<br />
== Degrees ==<br />
Standard Freemasonry, like many other fraternal societies, is divided into three degrees:<br />
*the first is called Entered Apprentice, <br />
*the second is Fellow Craft, and <br />
*the third is Master Mason. <br />
<br />
Progressing through the degrees traditionally involves memorization. After the third degree a Freemason may go on to other Masonic bodies such as the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite, and the York Rite.<br />
<br />
== History ==<br />
There is little known for certain about the early beginnings of Freemasonry. Masonic legends claim various theories about its origins, including some considered far fetched and improbable. Certainly, lodges of 'operative' Freemasons (men who worked stone and built with it) were formed around the major religious and civil work places during the [[Middle Ages]] in [[Europe]] and the British Isles. These lodges were early societies or [[guild]]s for the craftsmen, and places where an apprentice could be taught. The lodges also instilled moral teaching. When a man moved to another site he took special symbols, signs, and handshakes that were recognisable to the senior masons and formed a means of recognition of his standing in the wider society of masons. Over time, non-masons learned of the moral teaching and social atmosphere of the lodge and were admitted as non-operative or 'speculative' masons. (However, some claim that it was founded by [[Pythagoras]] or [[Euclid]], both ancient [[Greece|Greek]] geometers, which is supposed to explain Masonry's obsession with geometric symbolism.) <br />
<br />
In 1717 four lodges met together at a public house (pub, or hotel) in [[London]] and formed the Grand Lodge of [[England]], and this later chartered grand lodges in other countries.<br />
<br />
== Famous Freemasons ==<br />
[[Image:Washington..jpg|right|180px]]<br />
*HRH The [[Duke]] of [[Kent]] (b. 1935) Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England since 1967 (cousin of both [[Queen]] [[Elizabeth II]] and the [[Duke of Edinburgh]])<br />
*Lord [[Randolph Churchill]] (1849 - 1895)<br />
*Sir [[Winston Churchill]] (1874 - 1965) <br />
*[[Cecil Rhodes]] (1852 - 1903)<br />
*Sir [[Joseph Banks]] (1744 - 1820)<br />
*Dr [[Edward Jenner]] (1749 - 1823)<br />
*Sir [[Alexander Fleming]] (1881 - 1955) <br />
*[[Geoffrey Fisher]], [[Archbishop of Canterbury]] (1887 - 1972) <br />
*[[Robert Burns]] (1759 - 1796)<br />
*Sir [[Walter Scott]] (1771 - 1832)<br />
*[[Anthony Trollope]] (1815 - 1882)<br />
*Sir [[William S. Gilbert]] (1836 - 1911)<br />
*Sir [[Arthur Sullivan]] (1842 - 1900)<br />
*Sir [[Arthur Conan Doyle]] (1859 - 1930)<br />
*[[Rudyard Kipling]] (1865 - 1936)<br />
*Field Marshal 1st [[Duke of Wellington]] (1769 - 1852) <br />
*[[George Washington]]<br />
*Major [[General]] [[Michael Jeffrey]], [[Governor General of Australia]]<br />
<br />
== Women and Freemasonry ==<br />
Women are accepted into the social events surrounding Freemasonry.<br />
<br />
An organisation for women associated with Freemasonry is the [[Order of the Eastern Star]], and Freemasons may attend their meetings. <br />
<br />
=== Irregular Freemasonry including women ===<br />
There are some branches that also accept women (Co-masonry) and a few exclusively for women. These are not considered 'regular' by Freemasons, and men can be expelled from their lodge if they are known to have attended meetings of these organisations.<br />
<br />
== External links ==<br />
*[http://www.freemasonry.org/ The Philalethes Society]<br />
*[http://www.ugle.org.uk Grand Lodge of England]<br />
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09771a.htm Masonry] Catholic Encyclopedia.<br />
*[http://www.masonicforum.ro/en/nr19/jackson.html World Conference of Grand Masters]<br />
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/origin_free-masonry.html Origin of Free Masonry] Historical Documents: Thomas Paine<br />
<br />
[[category:history]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Chick&diff=348154Talk:Jack Chick2007-12-07T21:10:45Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>Love him, hate him...those tracts were ALWAYS the bestest. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 23:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I read my first one at a campground near Bar Harbor when I was a kid. I thought it was simultaneously cool and ridiculous. It was the Rapture one, where they declare One Church, the Pope is a tool of the Devil, and the little kid rats out his grandfather for being a Christian. Love love LOVE those things.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I first came across them in high school when I was volunteering at a soup kitchen in Denver that was handing them out. They had the "this was your life" one, which isn't especially controversial. I didn't realize until later just how controversial some of his tracts are. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I was linked to one during a session of debate on IRC - we were making fun of the way he invaraiably shows pro-evolution teachers as wrinkly, old, crabby, irritable and aggressive. His tracts are highly entertaining, but I wouldn't think such shallow arguments make effective evangelism. He basicly just repeats 'Join us or go to hell' in different variations. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
But that's the way it is! "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Are you gonna call Jesus a liar? He's the Son of God!! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 16:10, 7 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Cool? ==<br />
<br />
I saw a cool comment was made in regards to this guys work and I admit to being baffled. I think the guy is a crackpot but hey, this is America and he is entitled to his opinion, as long as he isn't inciting violence or a restriction of lifestyle against others. Wait, he probably is doing that. <br />
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 19:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, all fundamentalists are going to be viewed as such by intolerant liberals. I think this guy is right-on. If you don't accept Jesus alone as salvation, you're not going to be saved! It's pretty simple, it is. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 11:28, 4 December 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:Natural_Disaster_versus_Act_of_God&diff=347855Debate:Natural Disaster versus Act of God2007-12-07T02:20:58Z<p>Scorpion: /* Creation vs. Creator */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{debate}}<br />
<br />
Luke 13 tells the story of a disaster. Jesus was asked, "And what about the eighteen people who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them? Were they the worst sinners in Jerusalem?" <br />
Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. For those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." <br />
I can imagine Jesus saying the same thing about Hurricane Katrina, Virginia Tech, 9/11, (In which two towers fell, killing a lot more than 18 people) or any other tragedy. Of course, in the Old Testament God would sometimes smite people. But after Jesus died for our sins, God didn't need to do things like that anymore. Jesus took the hit instead. So to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and all the others who claim God's wrath against all the victims of disasters, I would recommend they read John 13 very carefully. <br />
<br />
<br />
This is about language and it's proper usage. I created an article about Natural Disasters saying:<br />
<br />
'Natural disaster is an atheist term for an Act of God. The term describes Acts of God as something that happens 'naturally' not by the will of our creator and thereby denies the influence of our own behavior.'<br />
<br />
It was instantly replaced by this stuff:<br />
<br />
'A natural disaster is a disaster caused by natural forces, as in, a volcano, or a hurricane.<br />
Some simply call a "natural disaster" an Act of God [1].'<br />
<br />
I think there is still to much of a liberal bias in here.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
: A bias against logical errors is not a liberal bias. It's a factual bias as you can see[http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Natural_disaster|here].<br />
<br />
::So where is the 'logical error'? And by the way: it's good form to sign your post.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::So your saying that when a sunami hits and kills hundreds of thousands of people, it's because your " creator" caused it, an " Act of God ". I guess that would make your creator the biggest mass and serial murder in history, given all the acts of god that have killed millions of people.<br />
<br />
::::Dear 'Anonymus': That's what you make of it. The flood happened and god had no doubts whether people were 'good' od 'bad'. Why is it so hard to understand?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
so what your saying everyone killed was killed because they were " bad" ? What a warped concept.<br />
<br />
Welcome to Christianity[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:35, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Welcome to the real world: "Cursed is the ground because of you;" Genesis 3:17 (The Fall of Man). Which is Judeo-Christianity to those willingly ignorant of the historic record of mankind. The result of the sin nature, the natural man who has departed the Garden of Eden and continues to reject the will of his Creator. In short, it is why natural disasters happen. i.e. The Flood, tidal waves, volcanic activity... etc. That is how nature is affected because of mankinds rejection of his Creator. The fallacy of an act of god(or gods) is a construct of Greek mythology and not Judeo Christianity.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:46, 2 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==From the Natural Disaster Talk Page==<br />
<br />
WOW. Um, I know we got a bias an all, but I think this is a bit much. I don't think God slings tornadoes around when he gets peeved.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Not sure how you could know that, but okay. If everything is from God, how can it be a "Natural" disaster. As a young Christian, taking the language back is very important to me. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Glad that you agree. Christian language is important.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:31, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Christian language is important, but understanding actual scientific causation is probably more important to your ultimate educational goals :-/ -[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Your version of the article is a disgrace. It's not 'simply called' act of god. That's the ver nature of 'natural disasters'.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If God exists, wouldn't it be God's work that defines natural? Wouldn't everything God does be natural? [[User:What|What]]<br />
::I just don't think that God is such an immanent being that everything that happens can be attributed to him. I really doubt that God himself is personally responsible for every natural disaster that occurs and they are all conscious decisions that he makes. Rather, I believe they are a part of the mechanics that control how the world in which God made functions.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Truly our God is an awesome God. If HE chooses to hurl tornadoes, HE surely can. When we look past HIS works, like Hurricane Katrina and that monsoon in Sri Lanka, we don't learn from HIM. Calling something a "Natural Disaster" takes away the force of GOD's perfect love.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::God created systems that do the work for him, if you believe in him. Saying he does everything directly is like saying the President makes your plumbing work.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
the president does make my plumbing work, everytime he gives one of his smirky speeches I'm off to the bathroom to throw up.<br />
::::God's perfect love is to kill thousands of people with a super storm? I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to that belief.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::By that logic, GOD is a so-called natural disaster. I don't think you should say that. Youm could be banned.[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::So you also don't 'buy' Noah? I thought it's a general agreement here to take the bible literally? Or am I mistaken?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 11:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::What the...!? Flesh that out so it makes sense. Aaaaand go! Also don't threaten me.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
Wasn't threatening, or didn't mean for it to be interpreted that way. But if everything comes from GOD, then it must be evidence of HIS perfect love. I know in my heart that even the soldiers who die in Iraq, fighting the muslims, are part of HIS ultimate plan. A natural disaster must be an act of GOD--a hurricane, a tornado, dinosaurs, wars and blessings. It is all part of the plan. Saying anything is natural is like going into a parking lot full of shopping carts and saying they must have gotten there by chance. Yes, at that particular second they are, but they were created by people, and thus by GOD so their placement is part of GOD's perfect will. We Christians must retalliate when so-called atheists and others try to steal the language from us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:First of all, the US is fighting the Iraqi insurgents. NOT the Muslims. There's a biiiiiig difference. You should look up the distinction somewhere else, perhaps on [www.wikipedia.com|Wikipedia]? Second of all, again, the distinction is between the original cause and the ultimate cause. God, to you, is the original cause, but he is not the ultimate cause, even if disasters are in his plan. Again, it's like saying the President makes your water run.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:47, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Never mind that your interpretation of "God's Will" basically absolves anyone of taking repsonsibility for their actions. "Sure I punched that guy in the face and took his car. But it's all part of God's plan." --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:50, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Would GOD allow it otherwise? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:51, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So if you do poorly on your homework, not your fault. Good point, Dave.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
The only problem is your beliefs rely on God to be an immanent being. What if I believe God to be a transcendent being?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 11:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
This is the best example I can think of right now. Lets say I design a computer program to create and manage a society of people, ala simcity. In the background of this program, I have it set to roll a set of ten dice every second. Each time the program rolls ten dice of the same number, the program randomly selects 2 coordinates on the map. At one coordinate, the computer creates a tornado, which follows a straight path to the other coordinate, at which point, it disappears. Now, I have created the system in question. However, the individual tornado itself is not direct action on my part, but rather a natural phenomenon of the system that I created. If I were to die while the computer system was running, it would still have tornadoes, despite my not being alive anymore. Thats basically how I think the world functions. God made it, then sat back and watched.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Why should he just sit back and watch? While your scenario is possible (technically) it's not convincing.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:04, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Why else? Too see what they create?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::"And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows." (Mark 13:5-8)<br />
:::People are misbehaving and God is punishing them. It is happening now.<br />
:::[[User:JC|JC]] 12:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Please Stop the Ridicule==<br />
I did not come here to debate and be ridiculed for my belief. Please do not ridicule Christians with stronger faith than some others. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't help debating you. It's all part of God's Will...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Showing you logical fallacies is no insulting you. It's a common problem that even the admins of this site don't understand.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Claiming 'stronger faith than some others' could itself be considered attacking the belief of those others. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::So claiming a strong faith attacks others, or threatens them? I thought Conservapedia was a place for Christians to come and be welcomed, not derided for their faith. I don't have time to create logical enthymemes for you, but GOD is the reason for everything, noy just what some people want HIM to promote. Some people use GOD like a slogan to be hayled out hen they see fit. I think GOD has a place in everyting around us. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::You didn't just claim a strong faith, you claimed that it was stronger than others. The obvious implication was that those others are those Christians who happen to disagree with you on this point. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Still: God caused the great flood, why shouldn't he cause a hurrican?--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I am unconvinced by angry tirades. Only logic works well.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:03, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I wasn't the one threatening you. Concerning logic: What about the flood? You never answered that one.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The "tirade" thing was directed at Flippin, not you, Sherm, sorry for the confusion. But, I would say that he didn't cause the flood, but that's because I'm not a biblical literalist, and I don't think that Noah actually saved all life on Earth. But, if you believe in God, certainly some acts are acts of God. But it goes too far to say that everything happening in the world is an act of God. Certainly they're in accord with his plan, but not directly caused.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::[[User:Flippin|Flippin]], please note that [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] tends to have "a chip on his shoulder" and is ready to argue (on ALL points). And [[User:AmesG|AmesG]], Gee, give us all a break, dude. (Though I '''did''' like the analogy of the President being my plumber, [turn on the light switch to get the hot water on], though I'd rather him do the gardening.) ANYWAY...<br />
<br />
::::"Stuff happens," to paraphrase the vulgar bumper-sticker: We don't know if there even is a "why" when stuff happens; we can know what leads ''up'' to stuff happening, we can see inside tornadoes and project with a fair degree of accuracy where they're going to go next but the philosophical '''reasons why''' tornadoes happen will be argued until the end of time. <br />
<br />
::::I believe it error to conclude that just because we can know what happens to create a tornado we can dispense with God and any plan He might have with regard to that tornado.<br />
<br />
::::MOO --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 12:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::HAHA! Thanks, Cracker? I'll give it a break when I get a break though ;-). But note that I concede that a divine plan naturally follows, but ultimate causation does not. Hey, I need something to do in Admin.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Interesting, simcity works as a perfect way to illustrate this. In the game, by default, disasters occur at random. However, the game allows you to turn disasters off or you can make disasters happen at will. Maybe thats how God is.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:God <3 Arcologies.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Free Will==<br />
<br />
My problem is this. If God is immanent like Flip believes him to be, then he has a hand in everything we do. Thus, we do not have free will, because everything we do is an Act of God. If we don't have free will, then what is the point of our existence? Why did God create us if not to see what would happen if you gave a creation free will?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This means solve the problems of hundreds of years of philosophy. We have proof in the bible that god interfers with life on earth. The question here is how far his influence reaches.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:10, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::ABSOLUTELY! Thank you sherm [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 12:12, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::If there's a legitimate question on that point, then it's hardly an atheist term, is it? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I can understand God interfering to guide the course of humanity. I can also see him interfering to correct grave injustices. But I can't seem him interfering in the everyday lives of humanity. Also, if you subscribe to Judaism, they believe that after the second destruction of the Temple, God left the earth and became a transcendent being, rather than an immanent one.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::If there is no free will how can we sin?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:15, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::My point exactly, which in my opinion refutes, to an extent, God's immanence. God cannot be immanent to the point where he controls humans' individual actions, or thus we cannot sin(unless of course God willing a human being to do something that is sinful still counts as a sin, which is I guess possible, but highly unfair and illogical)--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:19, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Exactly. By assigning everything to the Will of God, personal responsibility is removed. Consequences are removed. All choices, no matter how wrong or how damaging to others, are acceptable since they are the Will of God. Thanks, but no thanks. I like my world to be able to look at a guy like Ted Bundy or the 9/11 bombers and know that they are NOT part of what God wants from us.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Who called this a 'legitimate' question? It's like you are saying: There is free will and because of that god has no way to act? The opposite is true: Because humans have a free will they tend to sin and because of that god needs to act like he did with the flood.--[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::You misunderstand, we're not saying God has no way to act because of free will, we're saying that because of free will, God must be limited in his ability to act, otherwise humans will be incapable of sin, when in reality we obviously are.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 12:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::So you acknowledge limits to Gods' control and we just differ on where to draw the line.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Where do I say that??? I believe in gods ultimate power. --[[User:Sherman|Sherman]] 12:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Someone else take this one.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Can we all agree that this should be a debate topic again and not an article?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:36, 21 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Free Will?==<br />
<br />
How can a "free will" exist? Even to ask the question implies that one has the necessary capability to understand their life apart from GOD. In reality, the world the LORD lives in, there is no life without HIM. I am not saying this because I want people to accept JESUS CHRIST as their personal SAVIOUR, but because, like smoking (where everybody eventually quits) everybody eventually accepts the LORD. To even think that we meager simpletons can make a decision without HIM is patently false. This applies to this idea of so-called "natural disasters." If the LORD didn't want us to experience grief, HE wouldn't have created it. Like a child who needs a spanking, sometimes the LORD must punish us. The Noachian Flood is a perfect example of this. The LORD chose to destroy most of the world so it could be re-born. Hurricane Katrina is the same thing. Those who became wikcked--through act or deed--were smited and punished for their sins. How could it be any other way? And to say the LORD made the program and sat back to watch it work is like saying I have a child I put him in the yard to see if he lives. No, my friends, there is no "free will." There is only a choice for those who want to spend eternity with the ONE TRUE GOD, and those who don't. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Let me suggest a "free will" experment. And then you be the judge of whether you have free will or not, okay? Take a large hammer and hit yourself about as hard as you can on the head. Repeat until you don't want to anymore. Whose will caused you to cease hitting yourself with the hammer ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 16:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Uhm, wait a second. That means the only free decision in my whole life is to believe in "the LORD" or not to believe in him? If I choose to believe I don't need a free will anymore because "the LORD" takes over my mind or something like that? That's too simple, isn't it? I don't believe in God but even if I did, I wouldn't want to make him responsible for my actions. .<br />
By the way - who can explain the correlation between "smoking" and "accepting the Lord" to me? I just don't get it. --[[User:NukNuk|NukNuk]] 10:28, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think that the correlation is quite weak, because not all smokers do quit, and in fact quite a large number continue until it kills them. However with atheism, it does no harm to you, and quite a lot of good. I say this from personal experience, and to suggest that there is no such thing as free will makes a mockery of life in general. I quite liked Terryoe's simple experiment to prove that there is such a thing as free will. However i do sympathise with Flippin as he obviously feels threatened by the arguements put forward by some of the atheist/agnostics here and perhaps he does not have the same training in logic to successfully rebut these claims. This is not an insult to Flippin, it is very common for people to misunderstand logic. But i think that to claim that free will does not exist is simply very unintelligent. Bolly Ottihw]] 21:32, 19 April 2007<br />
<br />
==Evidence vs. Belief==<br />
<br />
So there are naturalistic explanations for natural disasters so to show that a natural disaster is an act of god I guess the burden of proof would fall on those believing it was god that influenced the event. My challenge is how do you prove that the disaster was caused by god and not by a naturalistic means? Are lightning strikes caused by god? If so then why waste energy to cast the bolts randomly across the earth and in between the clouds? Does god only take the reigns of a natural disaster when humans are involved? If this is the case then how do you prove this?--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Creation vs. Creator==<br />
Evidence and facts are experianced by created things, a.k.a. the natural world. I can see the disconnect many are having between the Creator and His creation. Jesus is telling them because of mankinds' sin nature, death is unavoidable. The creation is cursed and violently is reacting to sin. Everyone will die a physical death but Jesus answer was to 'repent' to avoid the second more critical death which is the spiritual death. Sin is merely the rejection of the Creators will for mankind and results in physical and then spiritual death. Repentence is merely returning to the Creators will for you to live. The bible, the Word of God outlines all of this, except when you take singular verses out of context. If you don't believe you have a spirit with your natural body then it shows how much you relish in this delusion of the creature versus its Creator. In the end then who do you think will prevail?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 11:27, 2 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
True, true! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 21:20, 6 December 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jack_Chick&diff=346828Jack Chick2007-12-04T16:29:58Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Jack Chick''' is an [[American]] [[Evangelical]] [[Christian]] cartoonist.<br />
<br />
His works are featured in "Chick Tracts," inexpensive [[comic books]] designed to be left in public places and to reach out to unsaved souls who might be passing by. A major theme in his tracts are emotionally wrought protrayals of [[God| God's]] perfect love for his children alongside somewhat more violent images, like [[homosexuality| homosexuals]] writhing in agony while being burned alive in the streets of [[Sodom]] and [[Gomorrah]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp</ref>. Chick tracts take a fundamentalist approach to the Bible, with an emphasis on the act of becoming saved. However, Chick tracts do not address the issue of whether an individual can become unsaved. Also, Chick tracts emphasize that becoming saved is something that can be done at any time during one's life, whether that person is a small child or a death row inmate minutes from execution. He is also a member of the King James Only movement. This movement rejects all other versions of the Bible as "false."<br />
<br />
Critics have argues that Chick's tracts are heavy-handed, clumsy morality tales whose reliance on stereotypes and faulty logic to make points is not nearly as odious as his flair for the overdramatic, questionable sense of decency, and strange obsession with conspiracy theories<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0007/0007_01.asp</ref>.<br />
<br />
Many Chick tracts depict unrealistic or over dramatized plots to help make their points. Often, Chick tracts depict children in elementary school who have never heard of Jesus, or purport that it is illegal to even discuss religion at all in school. <br />
<br />
Some recurring themes include non-christian characters being converted at the end of the tract, Chick's belief that the Roman Catholic Church is a tool of Satan, battles over human salvation between angels and demons, arguments for evolution being presented by old, aggressive and quick to anger teachers, the use of an 'accept Christ' form at the end of tracts and suggestions of demonic influence in even comparativly minor events such as the creation of TV series Bewitched.<br />
<br />
[[Jews]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0014/0014_01.asp</ref>, [[Islam| Muslims]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp</ref>, Roman [[Catholic| Catholics]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp</ref>, [[Freemasons]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0093/0093_01.asp</ref>, [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0026/0026_01.asp</ref>, [[Mormonism| Mormons]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0061/0061_01.asp</ref>, [[Buddhism| Buddhists]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0016/0016_01.asp</ref>, [[Hinduism| Hindus]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0070/0070_01.asp</ref>, [[Wicca| Wiccans]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5012/5012_01.asp</ref>, [[homosexual]]s<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0084/0084_01.asp</ref>, [[evolution]]ists<ref>http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0106.asp</ref>, [[Dungeons and Dragons]] players<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp</ref>, and Rock n' Roll fans<ref>http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0034/0034_01.asp</ref> have all been negatively portrayed in Chick's tracts, often being presented as subjects or tools of Satan. Chick has responded that he does not hate these individuals, but hates the system they belong to that is feverishly working to win millions of [[soul| souls]] for [[Satan]]<ref>http://www.chick.com/bc/1999/hate.asp</ref>.<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
[http://www.chick.com Chick Publications]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Chick, Jack}}<br />
[[Category:Religious people]]<br />
[[Category:Artists]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Chick&diff=346827Talk:Jack Chick2007-12-04T16:28:42Z<p>Scorpion: /* Cool? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Love him, hate him...those tracts were ALWAYS the bestest. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 23:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I read my first one at a campground near Bar Harbor when I was a kid. I thought it was simultaneously cool and ridiculous. It was the Rapture one, where they declare One Church, the Pope is a tool of the Devil, and the little kid rats out his grandfather for being a Christian. Love love LOVE those things.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I first came across them in high school when I was volunteering at a soup kitchen in Denver that was handing them out. They had the "this was your life" one, which isn't especially controversial. I didn't realize until later just how controversial some of his tracts are. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I was linked to one during a session of debate on IRC - we were making fun of the way he invaraiably shows pro-evolution teachers as wrinkly, old, crabby, irritable and aggressive. His tracts are highly entertaining, but I wouldn't think such shallow arguments make effective evangelism. He basicly just repeats 'Join us or go to hell' in different variations. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
<br />
== Cool? ==<br />
<br />
I saw a cool comment was made in regards to this guys work and I admit to being baffled. I think the guy is a crackpot but hey, this is America and he is entitled to his opinion, as long as he isn't inciting violence or a restriction of lifestyle against others. Wait, he probably is doing that. <br />
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 19:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, all fundamentalists are going to be viewed as such by intolerant liberals. I think this guy is right-on. If you don't accept Jesus alone as salvation, you're not going to be saved! It's pretty simple, it is. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 11:28, 4 December 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Demon&diff=345921Demon2007-12-02T02:38:22Z<p>Scorpion: /* Demons in fiction */</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''demon''' is a supernatural immortal creature which is an enemy of [[God]]. Demons may also be referred to as 'devils,' with a lowercase initial letter to differentiate them from The Devil, a title for [[Satan]].<br />
A [[succubus]] is an example of one kind of demon.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Demons in the bible==<br />
<br />
In the [[Old Testament]], God uses 'evil spirits' to serve His purposes. The precise nature of these spirits is unclear, but they may be classed as demons.<br />
*Judges 9:23, ''God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem''<br />
<br />
*1 Kings 22:23, ''...behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets...''<br />
<br />
*1 Samuel 16:14, ''But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.''<br />
<br />
In the [[New Testament]], Jesus cures the illnesses of various people by casting possessing demons from them.<br />
<br />
*Matthew 4:24: ''...they brought unto him'' [Jesus] ''all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy...''<br />
<br />
*Matthew 8:16: ''When the even was come, they brought unto him'' [Jesus] ''many that were possessed with devils...''<br />
<br />
*Matthew 8:28-34: ''And when he'' [Jesus] ''was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce...''<br />
<br />
Demons, and 'evil' or 'unclean' spirits are mentioned at least fifty times in the new testament.<br />
<br />
==Modern views of demons==<br />
<br />
More liberal-leaning protestants tend to either ignore or explicitly reject the existence of demons. The [[Catholic Church]] still claims demons exist and actively try to corrupt humans into sinful behavior, but has reduced the significance of this element of doctrine.<br />
<br />
More conservative protestants, especially those from evangelical denominations, see demons as engaging in a constant struggle for the soul of each person. Fallen angels who followed satan in his rebellion, demons are believed to operate in secret in order to corrupt and influence individual humans in order to ensure they turn away from Christ. For some examples of this, see the works of [[Jack Chick]].<br />
<br />
==Demons in fiction==<br />
<br />
Demons are, by definition, evil. This moral unambiguity makes them useful antagonists in TV series such as [[Charmed]], as the 'good guys' can kill demons without either moral dilemma or proof of guilt for any specific crime. They also play important parts in [[Frank E. Peretti]]'s novels, such as ''[[This Present Darkness]]'' and ''[[The Visitation]]''.<br />
<br />
[[category:religion]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Giant_monster_film&diff=345917Giant monster film2007-12-02T02:27:54Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''giant monster''' film genre is especially popular in Japan, the birthplace of [[Godzilla]]; see [[kaiju]]. The genre got its start with [[King Kong]], the huge prehistoric ape from Skull Island captured and brought to [[New York City]] where it climbed the world's tallest building hoping to evade capture. <br />
<br />
==Famous giant monsters==<br />
<br />
*[[Godzilla]]<br />
*[[Mothra]]<br />
*[[Gamera]]<br />
*[[King Ghidorah]]<br />
*[[Anguirus]]<br />
*[[King Ceaser]]<br />
*[[King Kong]] (from the Japanese film ''[[King Kong vs. Godzilla]]'')<br />
*[[Kumonga]]<br />
*[[Kamacuras]]<br />
*[[SpaceGodzilla]] (Godzilla clone)<br />
*[[Mechagodzilla]] (mechanical double of Godzilla)<br />
*[[Gigan]]<br />
*[[Zilla]] (Toho Studio's name for the creature of the 1998 film)<br />
<br />
[[Category:Japan]]<br />
[[Category:movies]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Godzilla&diff=345695Godzilla2007-12-01T14:46:06Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Hgcfjg.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]<br />
'''Godzilla''' (from the Japanese: ''Gojira'' meaning, approximately, [[gorilla]]-[[whale]]), is a fictional creature ([[kaiju]]) featured in a number of popular [[Japan]]ese films made by Toho Studios since 1954.<br />
<br />
A 300-foot high, 20,000 ton, fire-breathing [[dinosaur]], he typically emerges from [[hibernation]] to demolish major cities, especially [[Tokyo]], and fight hand-to-hand with a selection of monstrous foes, notable amongst whom are Mothra (a gigantic [[moth]]), King Ghidorah (a three-headed golden space [[dragon]]), and Rodan (a huge [[pterodactyl]]). In the original 1954 film and many subsequent films, Godzilla has been portrayed as a menace to humanity, while in others he acts as as a savior and guardian. In Son of Godzilla, he is shown to be a stern but conscientious father.<br />
<br />
Being traditionally portrayed by a man in a suit, in contrast to the [[stop-motion animation]] techniques used for films such as [[King Kong]], allows Godzilla an almost human range of dramatic expression, at the expense of entirely convincing special effects. Though the versions commonly available in the West are often badly edited and cheaply [[dubbing|dubbed]], production values for Godzilla films are surprisingly high. <br />
<br />
In addition to city-trampling and monster fights, [[science fiction]] themes such as [[robotics]], [[mind control]], and [[alien invasion]] are commonly featured. Leading human characters typically exhibit extreme devotion to duty and a readiness to make heroic self-sacrifices.<br />
<br />
The enormous popularity and cultural resonance of Godzilla is perhaps due to his many positive characteristics. He is courageous and indomitable, a potent masculine symbol, and while pugnacious and solitary, is essentially dispassionate and impartial in his dealings with others. Godzilla also represents the personification of the threat to Japan from [[atomic bomb]]ing and [[earthquake]]s, and to some extent the traits of Japanese [[nationalism]], [[isolationism]] and [[xenophobia]].{{fact}}<br />
<br />
==Godzilla (1998)==<br />
<br />
In 1998, German/American director [[Roland Emmerich]] remade the original film ''Godzilla'' using CGI and a whole new setting and story. This film switches the action from [[Tokyo]] to [[New York City]] and uses state-of-the-art computer-generated imagery (CGI) to represent the titular monster. The film garnered heavy criticism by fans of the original, who criticized the fact that the film did not contain the anti-nuclear message present in the original and had redesigned the creature. The 1998 film could be considered a revamp rather than a remake, mostly due to the different appearance of "Godzilla", who, rather than a mutated dinosaur was changed to an iguana mutated by nuclear fallout. <br />
<br />
==Godzilla: Final Wars (2004)==<br />
In 2004, Toho produced ''Godzilla: Final Wars'' in which they showed their disapproval of the 1998 version. In this film, an organization called the EDF (Earth Defense Force), which is composed of humans called "mutants", has been formed to counter the monster attacks that take place periodically. However, an alien race known as the Xilians takes control of many of the monsters on earth (one of which is the Roland Emmerich version of Godzilla, now called "Zilla") and directs them to attack many of Earth's major cities. Then they capture them, appearing to mankind as benevolent. However, when their true intentions of eating humans is revealed, they release the monsters on the cities to continue their destruction. Eventually, Godzilla (who was imprisoned in the ice) is freed, and proceeds to defeat each and every one of the monsters. He starts with "Zilla", who he defeats in 45 seconds (to show how much "better" the original Godzilla is). He then goes on to destroy the rest of them, ending the Xilian threat.<br />
<br />
==Filmography==<br />
<br />
*''Godzilla''/''Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' (1954)<br />
*''Godzilla Raids Again'' (1955)<br />
*''[[King Kong]] vs. Godzilla'' (1962)<br />
*''Mothra vs. Godzilla'' (1964)<br />
*''Ghidorah, the Three-Headed Monster'' (1964)<br />
*''Invasion of Astro-Monster'' (1965)<br />
*''Ebirah, Horror of the Deep'' (1966)<br />
*''Son of Godzilla'' (1967)<br />
*''Destroy All Monsters'' (1968)<br />
*''All Monsters Attack'' (1969)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Hedorah'' (1971)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Gigan'' (1972)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Megalon'' (1973)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla'' (1974)<br />
*''Terror of Mechagodzilla'' (1975)<br />
*''The Return of Godzilla''/''Godzilla 1985'' (1984)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Boillante'' (1989)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah'' (1991)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Mothra'' (1992)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla II'' (1993<br />
*''Godzilla vs. SpaceGodzilla'' (1994)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Destroyah'' (1995)<br />
*''GODZILLA'' (1998) - American remake<br />
*''Godzilla 2000: Millenium'' (1999)<br />
*''Godzilla vs. Megaguirus'' (2000)<br />
*''Godzilla, Mothra and King Ghidorah: Giant Monsters All-Out Attack'' (2001)<br />
*''Godzilla Against Mechagodzilla'' (2002)<br />
*''Godzilla: Tokyo S.O.S.!'' (2003)<br />
*''Godzilla: Final Wars'' (2004)<br />
*''Godzilla 3D to the MAX'' (2008) - 3D Imax release<br />
<br />
[[Category:Cinema]]<br />
[[Category:Japan]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvation&diff=345524Talk:Salvation2007-12-01T03:54:58Z<p>Scorpion: /* Article changed for the actual Biblical account */</p>
<hr />
<div>Just so everyone knows, I did the major change on this entery today for these reasons:<br />
<br />
- it seemed to filled with jargon. It made sense to me, someone who was raised in conservative protestant Christianity, but would a Hindu in New Delhi have understood what was written? I don't think so. I tried to use language that would be familiar to any English speaker with a reasonable education.<br />
<br />
- the article I changed only explained one view of salvation. I tried to show that there are different views of salvation arising out of the NT and to give a brief description of a very popular protestant understanding of salvation, the Calvinist view. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I think several more things are necessary for the article on salvation:<br />
<br />
1. an expansion/fleshing out of Calvinist thought, including a discussion of arius and the calvinist response. (because this is one of two major theories in American protestantism)<br />
2. a subsection on Wessleyan soteriology (because this is the other major thoery in American Protestantism)<br />
3. a subsection on original sin that discusses the impact of St. Augustine's innovation of A.D. 395<br />
4. a subsection on St.Alselm of Canterbury's theory and the development of western soteriology since then.<br />
5. a section dealing with various theories of salvation with subsections dealing with the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the mercantiist theory, the Christos Victor theory, etc.<br />
6. a section dealing with soteriology of Roman Catholicism (because it is the largest church)(this might fit in under thediscussions of St. Augustine and St. Anselm)<br />
7. a section dealing with the soteriology of the Orthodox Church (because it is the second largest church)<br />
<br />
==Article changed for the actual Biblical account==<br />
Too many, differing accounts for salvation tended to water-down the article and confuse the reader; further, and more serious, God only had ONE way for salvation and eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ as specified in the Bible. There is no other way. Differing accounts that were here previously, such as the Calvinist, can be put into separate articles with entries as to why they differ from the straight, Biblical account. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:10, 2 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think you underestimate the inter-denominational bickering. Every denomination seems to say there is one way to salvation, true - but they all claim its a different way.<br />
* Catholic doctrine says there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Period. For church members, its just a matter of dieing without unconfessed sin.<br />
* Most Evangalical churches go for the personal approach - where one need only accept Christ. Church membership is encouraged, but not required.<br />
* A very large number of more casual christians believe that God acts as a judge of who is 'good' and 'bad' - not even careing if someone is a Christian or not. If they are kind, generous and polite they go to heaven, while the violent and selfish go to hell.<br />
* The Jehova's Witnesses, very much on the fringes of Christianity, believe salvation is earned by works in life. Specificly, knocking on doors.<br />
* Then you have the little semi-cults and their strange selection of beliefs.<br />
- [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
:So what are you claiming? Interdenominational bickering nullifies God's Word? Let's draw the line first off, in Western Christianity, between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.<br />
:*Roman Catholicism stresses God's Word and teaching is kept alive and passed on via a [[priest]]hood, or [[curia]], i.e. in persons, and Church tradition, with the head of the Roman Church being the final arbiter or interpreter of Scripture.<br />
:*Protestantism relies on Scritpture itself as God's Word and teaching, unfiltered by mortal men.<br />
:*Various subdenominations which have sprung from Protestant traditions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, ''et al'' can be reviewed within the Canon of Scriprture.<br />
:Where is the controversy? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
I think the article as written as (e.g. Biblical Account) is a really good statement of the modern Evangelical Protestant development of St. Anselm of Canterbury's 11th century Satisfaction theory. (See his work ''Cur Deus Homo?'') I think it might be good to retitle this from the Biblical Account to Modern Evangeilcal Satisfaction Theory. Also, I'd like to include (1) something on the much older Christus Victor theory of salvation, and (2) something on the role of the Sacraments in salvation. Does anyone see any problems with doing this?--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 13:36, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There will be NO changes to this article. It is the Biblical account of salvation; it's not some modern theory; it's not some older Christus Victor theory; it's not anyone else's theory for that matter. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, I don't quite know what to say about that. I don't want to get into a fruitless debate with an Admin (especiallly one who served us in the Naval profesion) but I would like to make the following observations: <br />
1 Many people who love the Scriptures and the Lord who is revealed in them have a different understanding of them than does Karajou. <br />
2 The history of theology does show the development of the Protestant version of the Satisfaction Theory from Anselm, through Zwingli, through the Puritans and into modern American-style Protestantism. The impetus behind the development of the theory is laudible, but there is no denying that it is a comparitively recent interpretation of Scripture. <br />
3 Many prominent American conservatives such as the Justice Salcia, Paul Weyrich, and Bill Buckley hold different views of Salvation from the one to which Karajou is limiting the article. <br />
4 I want conservapedia to be a success. I would like for it to be a place where serious scholars can find information on every topic under Heaven, not a ghetto for echo-chamber seekers afraid of history, tradition, and reason.<br />
<br />
Now having said that, I have a few questions: Would it be acceptable to Karajou to have links in the Salvation article that lead to articles dealing with the other soteriological theories? Would Karajou mind changing the "the" to an "a" because all of the major theories of how Salvation works are Biblical, they just rely on different passages of Scripture? Since the conservative movement is so broad, is it right for this encyclepedia to limit the definition of Salvation to one not held by most conservative Christians?--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 16:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is the Biblical promise of salvation, not just some "belief". The fact that it stands apart from other versions of salvation is good enough to have the whole article on it. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 22:41, 30 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:And I would just like to thank the writer of this article from the bottom of my heart...I was tormented by fear of hell, fear of eternal damnation before I came and read this. Now, after having recieved Jesus as my Lord and Savior, I feel as if I've already "entered the gates of Paradise" (quoted from [[Martin Luther")! What a wonderful Savior! I would encourage those who believe they can get eternal life by works to reconsider. Jesus died for you, and when He died He took our sins upon Himself, and He freed us from the power of sin and from the punishment of hell! There is nothing else that needs to be done. Praise the Lord! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 22:54, 30 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvation&diff=345523Talk:Salvation2007-12-01T03:41:33Z<p>Scorpion: /* Article changed for the actual Biblical account */</p>
<hr />
<div>Just so everyone knows, I did the major change on this entery today for these reasons:<br />
<br />
- it seemed to filled with jargon. It made sense to me, someone who was raised in conservative protestant Christianity, but would a Hindu in New Delhi have understood what was written? I don't think so. I tried to use language that would be familiar to any English speaker with a reasonable education.<br />
<br />
- the article I changed only explained one view of salvation. I tried to show that there are different views of salvation arising out of the NT and to give a brief description of a very popular protestant understanding of salvation, the Calvinist view. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I think several more things are necessary for the article on salvation:<br />
<br />
1. an expansion/fleshing out of Calvinist thought, including a discussion of arius and the calvinist response. (because this is one of two major theories in American protestantism)<br />
2. a subsection on Wessleyan soteriology (because this is the other major thoery in American Protestantism)<br />
3. a subsection on original sin that discusses the impact of St. Augustine's innovation of A.D. 395<br />
4. a subsection on St.Alselm of Canterbury's theory and the development of western soteriology since then.<br />
5. a section dealing with various theories of salvation with subsections dealing with the ransom theory, the satisfaction theory, the mercantiist theory, the Christos Victor theory, etc.<br />
6. a section dealing with soteriology of Roman Catholicism (because it is the largest church)(this might fit in under thediscussions of St. Augustine and St. Anselm)<br />
7. a section dealing with the soteriology of the Orthodox Church (because it is the second largest church)<br />
<br />
==Article changed for the actual Biblical account==<br />
Too many, differing accounts for salvation tended to water-down the article and confuse the reader; further, and more serious, God only had ONE way for salvation and eternal life, and that is through Jesus Christ as specified in the Bible. There is no other way. Differing accounts that were here previously, such as the Calvinist, can be put into separate articles with entries as to why they differ from the straight, Biblical account. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:10, 2 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I think you underestimate the inter-denominational bickering. Every denomination seems to say there is one way to salvation, true - but they all claim its a different way.<br />
* Catholic doctrine says there is no salvation outside the Catholic church. Period. For church members, its just a matter of dieing without unconfessed sin.<br />
* Most Evangalical churches go for the personal approach - where one need only accept Christ. Church membership is encouraged, but not required.<br />
* A very large number of more casual christians believe that God acts as a judge of who is 'good' and 'bad' - not even careing if someone is a Christian or not. If they are kind, generous and polite they go to heaven, while the violent and selfish go to hell.<br />
* The Jehova's Witnesses, very much on the fringes of Christianity, believe salvation is earned by works in life. Specificly, knocking on doors.<br />
* Then you have the little semi-cults and their strange selection of beliefs.<br />
- [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]<br />
:So what are you claiming? Interdenominational bickering nullifies God's Word? Let's draw the line first off, in Western Christianity, between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.<br />
:*Roman Catholicism stresses God's Word and teaching is kept alive and passed on via a [[priest]]hood, or [[curia]], i.e. in persons, and Church tradition, with the head of the Roman Church being the final arbiter or interpreter of Scripture.<br />
:*Protestantism relies on Scritpture itself as God's Word and teaching, unfiltered by mortal men.<br />
:*Various subdenominations which have sprung from Protestant traditions, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, ''et al'' can be reviewed within the Canon of Scriprture.<br />
:Where is the controversy? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
I think the article as written as (e.g. Biblical Account) is a really good statement of the modern Evangelical Protestant development of St. Anselm of Canterbury's 11th century Satisfaction theory. (See his work ''Cur Deus Homo?'') I think it might be good to retitle this from the Biblical Account to Modern Evangeilcal Satisfaction Theory. Also, I'd like to include (1) something on the much older Christus Victor theory of salvation, and (2) something on the role of the Sacraments in salvation. Does anyone see any problems with doing this?--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 13:36, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:There will be NO changes to this article. It is the Biblical account of salvation; it's not some modern theory; it's not some older Christus Victor theory; it's not anyone else's theory for that matter. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, I don't quite know what to say about that. I don't want to get into a fruitless debate with an Admin (especiallly one who served us in the Naval profesion) but I would like to make the following observations: <br />
1 Many people who love the Scriptures and the Lord who is revealed in them have a different understanding of them than does Karajou. <br />
2 The history of theology does show the development of the Protestant version of the Satisfaction Theory from Anselm, through Zwingli, through the Puritans and into modern American-style Protestantism. The impetus behind the development of the theory is laudible, but there is no denying that it is a comparitively recent interpretation of Scripture. <br />
3 Many prominent American conservatives such as the Justice Salcia, Paul Weyrich, and Bill Buckley hold different views of Salvation from the one to which Karajou is limiting the article. <br />
4 I want conservapedia to be a success. I would like for it to be a place where serious scholars can find information on every topic under Heaven, not a ghetto for echo-chamber seekers afraid of history, tradition, and reason.<br />
<br />
Now having said that, I have a few questions: Would it be acceptable to Karajou to have links in the Salvation article that lead to articles dealing with the other soteriological theories? Would Karajou mind changing the "the" to an "a" because all of the major theories of how Salvation works are Biblical, they just rely on different passages of Scripture? Since the conservative movement is so broad, is it right for this encyclepedia to limit the definition of Salvation to one not held by most conservative Christians?--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 16:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is the Biblical promise of salvation, not just some "belief". The fact that it stands apart from other versions of salvation is good enough to have the whole article on it. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 22:41, 30 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad&diff=344811Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad2007-11-29T19:40:48Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>Mahmoud "I'm-a-dinner-jacket" is his true name. This article should be edited to remove the common misconception of "Ahmadinejad".<br />
<br />
Thankyou and goodnight.<br />
<br />
== rule? ==<br />
<br />
Shouldn't it be clarified that in Iran, the president isn't actually the leader? Policy is actually set by the Supreme Leader, who is the true ruler of the country. That's just a content comment; clearly, the style of this entry was unprofessional and not appropriate for a encyclopedia.<br />
:He's technically the leader, though only in name. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:56, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Hostage photo==<br />
<br />
Ahmedinejad wasn't among the hostage takers in the Iran hostage crisis, regardless of what Daniel Pipes says. 4 of the leaders of the student revolution, along with the actual lead hostage taker have said he wasn't involved. Interestingly, these individuals are opposed to Ahmedinejad's policies, so if he was involved, they would have no reason to protect him. [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 16:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:He wasn't a leader, but he was definitely involved. He's been identified by several of the hostages and other students. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 17:22, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::The assertion needs to be cited to Pipes. Pipes is credible, particularly over four anonymous terrrorists and criminals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't necessarily agree that Pipes is credible. His biases are well-known. Additionally, discounting the views of those that were actually involved in the revolution because they are "terrorists and criminals" is pure ad-hominem. A statement stands or falls on the validity of the statement, not who says it. Their credibility on this particular statement is far greater than that of Pipes, because they were actually present. So, what's more likely; that multiple people involved in the revolution and hostage taking who currently disagree with Ahmedinejad are being truthful when they deny his involvement and that those who believe he was present may be dealing with mistaken identity, or that Pipes has uncovered some grand conspiracy to hide Ahmedinejad's involvement where no possible motive to hide his involvement is reasonable? At best, I think we should list that it's possible that he was involved but that there is no definitive evidence either way.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 17:50, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Actually Pipes does not personally make the assertion, he cites 5 eyewitnesses. And I am not certain we should even countentance giving any credibility whatsoever to using terrorists to refute them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::He may cite 5 eyewitnesses, but he discounts reports from at least 5 other eyewitnesses who disagree with his POV. He's assuming his conclusion. Even the jihadwatch article I've cited (which is hardly objective) says that the evidence is inconclusive. If Conservapedia's goal is accuracy and not truthiness, then we should be honest and say that the evidence is inconclusive.[[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:03, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::Show some cites. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::Sure: "But Abdi, a former revolutionary student turned radical reformer who was jailed in 2002 for selling intelligence to foreigners including the US-based polling company Gallup, said the former American hostages had poor memories. The Times said Ahmadinejad was a 23-year-old university student at the time of the takeover in November 1979 and was a founding member of the radical student group that organised the storming of the US Embassy compound. Mohsen Mirdamadi, another ringleader of the hostage-taking drama in Tehran, rejected the Times report. “I deny such reports. Ahmadinejad was not a member of the radical students’ group who seized the embassy,” said Mirdamadi, a former lawmaker. Like many of the former hostage-takers, Mirdamadi is now an outspoken proponent of the need to reform Iran’s Islamic political system." [http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_1-7-2005_pg4_16]. "But Ahmadinejad's office denied these allegations and other hostage-takers, some of them now political opponents of Ahmadinejad – including Mohsen Mirdamadi, Hamid Reza, Abbas Abdi, Mohammad-Reza Khatami, and Saeed Hajjarian Jalaiepour – confirmed his account. One former American hostage denied Ahmadinejad had been a captor. Amir Taheri, editor-in-chief of a Tehran newspaper in the shah's time, concluded that "it is almost certain Ahmadinejad was not directly involved in the US embassy episode."" [http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014049.php]. "But other former American hostages contacted by CNN say they aren't so sure. Much of the controversy surrounds these photographs from 1979. The one on the left confirmed to be then 23-year-old Ahmedinejad. The one on the right of a hostage-taker. A known ultra-conservative and follower of Iran's supreme leader, Ahmadinejad has detailed much of his past on his own Web site, even listing his membership in a radical student group back in the '70s, some of whose members seized the American embassy. But one of the former student leaders of the hostage-taking told CNN Ahmadinejad was not involved, and close associates of the president-elect, as well as the Iranian government, have also reportedly denied the allegations." [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/30/ldt.01.html]. "A CIA spokeswoman yesterday said she would not comment on the matter because the report is classified. Another administration official, however, said the agency determined that they lacked the evidence to "conclude definitively" on Mr. Ahmadinejad's role. "It was similar to the Scottish court's not proven judgment," the source said." [http://www.nysun.com/article/19982?page_no=2]. "There is no evidence to suggest that; the CIA itself has suggested he was not part of it. But here you get into a tricky position because the Bush administration is unwilling to contradict the American hostages."[http://www.cfr.org/publication/8831/takeyh.html]<br />
<br />
::::::::How many more references would you like? [[User:JohnSmith|JohnSmith]] 18:19, 12 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Who needs 'em? The fact is, of course the Iranian government will deny it! They'll deny anything that will make their Dear Leader look bad! Don't go assuming it ''wasn't'' him just because his government denies it! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:40, 29 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Kim_Jong_Il&diff=344810Talk:Kim Jong Il2007-11-29T19:25:07Z<p>Scorpion: New page: Hmmm...I guess the neoliberals have nothing to say, since they might just be able to see well enough through this guy! ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Hmmm...I guess the neoliberals have nothing to say, since they might just be able to see well enough through this guy! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:25, 29 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chavez&diff=344809Talk:Hugo Chavez2007-11-29T19:22:38Z<p>Scorpion: Pro-Chavez</p>
<hr />
<div>This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)<br />
==This article is surprisingly neutral==<br />
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
==Dictator!!!!????==<br />
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::...Who was not democratically elected. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.<br />
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Not surprising. Mr. Homimachong seems to be a fan of Kim Jong il and Hitler and Saddam Husseien, and he can't NOT be a fan of someone like Chavez. If you liked Hitler, you'll like Chavez! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:18, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==<br />
<br />
you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered<br />
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!<br />
<br />
:Typical non-spelling, America-hating fascist liberal, accusing others of fascism! Go to Venezuela. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:And Hitler was also voted in democratically. Are you going to say that he was Germany's "president"? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Irony ==<br />
<br />
Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.<br />
<br />
Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}<br />
<br />
== What a disgrace. ==<br />
<br />
How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?<br />
<br />
And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.<br />
<br />
It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]<br />
<br />
:So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==<br />
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Pro-Chavez ==<br />
<br />
I don't care how Chavez was sworn in, he can certainly become a dictator in office! I, frankly, am appalled at all those on here who love this man. If you love this man you must be a chavestite yourself or went to a ultra-pro-Chavez Venezuelan school. If so, you have a lot of surprises waiting for you! This article isn't even listing the things he said about Bush, like calling him "the devil". If he thinks Bush is the devil, why isn't he following him?? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chavez&diff=344806Talk:Hugo Chavez2007-11-29T19:18:51Z<p>Scorpion: /* Dictator!!!!???? */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)<br />
==This article is surprisingly neutral==<br />
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
==Dictator!!!!????==<br />
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::...Who was not democratically elected. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.<br />
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Not surprising. Mr. Homimachong seems to be a fan of Kim Jong il and Hitler and Saddam Husseien, and he can't NOT be a fan of someone like Chavez. If you liked Hitler, you'll like Chavez! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:18, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==<br />
<br />
you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered<br />
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!<br />
<br />
:Typical non-spelling, America-hating fascist liberal, accusing others of fascism! Go to Venezuela. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:And Hitler was also voted in democratically. Are you going to say that he was Germany's "president"? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Irony ==<br />
<br />
Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.<br />
<br />
Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}<br />
<br />
== What a disgrace. ==<br />
<br />
How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?<br />
<br />
And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.<br />
<br />
It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]<br />
<br />
:So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==<br />
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chavez&diff=344805Talk:Hugo Chavez2007-11-29T19:15:40Z<p>Scorpion: /* chavez IS NOT a dictator */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)<br />
==This article is surprisingly neutral==<br />
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
==Dictator!!!!????==<br />
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::...Who was not democratically elected. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.<br />
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==<br />
<br />
you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered<br />
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!<br />
<br />
:Typical non-spelling, America-hating fascist liberal, accusing others of fascism! Go to Venezuela. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:And Hitler was also voted in democratically. Are you going to say that he was Germany's "president"? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Irony ==<br />
<br />
Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.<br />
<br />
Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}<br />
<br />
== What a disgrace. ==<br />
<br />
How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?<br />
<br />
And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.<br />
<br />
It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]<br />
<br />
:So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==<br />
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chavez&diff=344804Talk:Hugo Chavez2007-11-29T19:14:41Z<p>Scorpion: /* chavez IS NOT a dictator */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)<br />
==This article is surprisingly neutral==<br />
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
==Dictator!!!!????==<br />
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::...Who was not democratically elected. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.<br />
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==<br />
<br />
you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered<br />
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!<br />
<br />
:Typical non-spelling, America-hating fascist liberal, accusing others of fascism! Go to Venezuela. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Irony ==<br />
<br />
Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.<br />
<br />
Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}<br />
<br />
== What a disgrace. ==<br />
<br />
How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?<br />
<br />
And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.<br />
<br />
It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]<br />
<br />
:So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==<br />
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chavez&diff=344803Talk:Hugo Chavez2007-11-29T19:12:09Z<p>Scorpion: /* What a disgrace. */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)<br />
==This article is surprisingly neutral==<br />
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
==Dictator!!!!????==<br />
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::...Who was not democratically elected. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.<br />
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==<br />
<br />
you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered<br />
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!<br />
<br />
== Irony ==<br />
<br />
Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.<br />
<br />
Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}<br />
<br />
== What a disgrace. ==<br />
<br />
How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?<br />
<br />
And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.<br />
<br />
It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]<br />
<br />
:So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==<br />
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chavez&diff=344802Talk:Hugo Chavez2007-11-29T19:08:31Z<p>Scorpion: /* NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!! */</p>
<hr />
<div>This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)<br />
==This article is surprisingly neutral==<br />
I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:He's more of a '''greedy''' communist robber baron. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&oldid=139640 here]. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --[[User:DemocraticSocialist|DemocraticSocialist]] 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
==Dictator!!!!????==<br />
How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --[[User:ScandalousHegemony|ScandalousHegemony]] 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:How about that Hitler guy in 1933? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::...Who was not democratically elected. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General [[Pinochet]] of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.<br />
:::::: Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::*actually, he does [http://www.mywire.com/pubs/ForeignPolicy/2006/01/01/1111144/print]. Chavez is an autocrat.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== chavez IS NOT a dictator ==<br />
<br />
you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered<br />
a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!<br />
<br />
== Irony ==<br />
<br />
Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.<br />
<br />
Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. {{unsigned|Mrivpond}}<br />
<br />
== What a disgrace. ==<br />
<br />
How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in '''ANY WAY'''?<br />
<br />
And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. '''ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS''', If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.<br />
<br />
It also is in ''no way'' the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. [[User:Pallawish]]<br />
<br />
==NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!==<br />
CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:What is this Chavestite doing in America????? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bashar_al-Assad&diff=343209Bashar al-Assad2007-11-26T03:55:18Z<p>Scorpion: New page: '''Bashar al-Assad''' is the current president of Syria. {{stub}}</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Bashar al-Assad''' is the current president of [[Syria]]. <br />
<br />
{{stub}}</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=His_Dark_Materials_(novel)&diff=333336His Dark Materials (novel)2007-11-13T00:22:53Z<p>Scorpion: New page: '''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of fantasy novels by British author Philip Pullman. The trilogy, which consist of ''The Northern Lights'' (''The Golden Compass'' in [...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''His Dark Materials''''' is a trilogy of fantasy novels by [[Britain|British]] author Philip Pullman. The trilogy, which consist of ''The Northern Lights'' (''The Golden Compass'' in [[North America]]), ''The Subtle Knife'', and ''The Amber Spyglass'', center around a girl, Lyra Belacqua and companion Will Parry, who dwell in a universe parallel to ours. The author is a blatant anti-Christian and his books reflect his worldview. For instance, the Christian [[heaven]] is made to be a lie, with the "afterlife" consisting of a bleak underworld where human souls, known as [[daemon]]s, being tormented by harpies, and [[God]] being merely an [[angel]] created from dust. The books, nonetheless, are quite popular in both the [[United Kingdom|UK]] and [[United States]] among atheistic and anti-Christian communities. <br />
<br />
{{stub}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
<br />
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Dark_Materials His Dark Materials] by [[Wikipedia]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:CreationWiki&diff=327281Talk:CreationWiki2007-11-03T18:10:15Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>People are always bashing creationists :-(. To be clear, I mean this to compliment DanH on blocking the recent vandalism. -[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 19:22, 10 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Is there something wrong with that site right now? Everytime I try to go to it I get an "Error: 403 Forbidden" message. Is anyone else having this problem? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 22:23, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Per your concern, I just tried to logon. It came up for me. Sometimes sites are down for temporary time periods. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::That seems to happen a lot, because I can't access it again, only this time it says "Internet Explorer Cannot Display the Webpage". I wonder if it's under attack '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 14:10, 3 November 2007 (EDT)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=King_Kong&diff=325114King Kong2007-10-30T18:40:07Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Beau-ti-ful.jpg|right|thumb|260px|King Kong sits on a ledge of the [[Empire State Building]] 2005 version, directed by Peter Jackson.]]<br />
'''King Kong''' is a 1933 film about a giant, [[prehistoric]] [[gorilla]] that lives on "Skull Island". A group of explorers, led by filmmaker Carl Denham, and including actress Ann Darrow, travel to the island where Ann is captured by the natives and sacrificed to King Kong. The giant gorilla captures her and takes her back to his cave, but on the way there he fights a [[Tyrannosaurus Rex]] (and breaks its jaw) and a giant acquatic cave serpent. Eventually her lover, Jack Driscoll (the ship's first mate) finds her and gets her back, but Kong follows and is captured. They take him to [[New York City]] and put him on display, but he escapes because he is scared of the flash-bulbs of the reporters. He captures Ann and takes her to the top of the [[Empire State Building]], where he is gunned down by biplanes and falls to his death. It was followed by a sequel, ''[[Son of Kong]]'', made an appearance in two [[Japanese]] films: ''[[King Kong vs. Godzilla]]'' and ''King Kong Escapes'', and was remade twice; once in 1977, and again in 2005 by director [[Peter Jackson]].<br />
[[category:movies]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=319401Talk:Adolf Hitler2007-10-19T17:15:45Z<p>Scorpion: /* we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{CP PermProtect}}<br />
<br><br><br />
[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]] <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Improvement Proposals==<br />
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
== Path to power ==<br />
<br />
I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events. <br />
<br />
Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)<br />
<br />
:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:<br />
<br />
:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30<br />
<br />
::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."<br />
<br />
:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did. <br />
<br />
:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.<br />
<br />
Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either. <br />
<br />
Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany. <br />
<br />
Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?<br />
<br />
Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?<br />
<br />
And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26<br />
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* What has FDR to do with this matter?<br />
<br />
* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?<br />
<br />
* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.<br />
<br />
* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions. <br />
<br />
* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36<br />
<br />
#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.<br />
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?<br />
<br />
* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God. <br />
<br />
* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00<br />
<br />
::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.<br />
<br />
::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (<u>whom it was percieved</u>) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.<br />
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26<br />
<br />
:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.<br />
<br />
:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00<br />
<br />
:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35<br />
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00<br />
<br />
* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running? <br />
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)<br />
<br />
:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity. <br />
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them. <br />
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question. <br />
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme? <br />
<br />
:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]] <br />
<br />
* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23<br />
<br />
:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday, <br />
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?<br />
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00<br />
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
===contemporaneous corroboration===<br />
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:<br />
<br />
<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center><br />
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.<br />
<br />
:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.<br />
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.<br />
<br />
And here is the Hayek quote:<br />
<br />
:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."<br />
<br />
'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)<br />
<br />
::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00<br />
<br />
::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this. <br />
<br />
Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:<br />
<br />
* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.<br />
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.<br />
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote. <br />
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.<br />
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.<br />
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.<br />
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.<br />
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events. <br />
<br />
Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20<br />
<br />
:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.<br />
<br />
:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]] <br />
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30<br />
<br />
:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==von Papen==<br />
<br />
I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.<br />
<br />
And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.<br />
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).<br />
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]<br />
<br />
:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.<br />
<br />
:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles<br />
<br />
:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres<br />
<br />
:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres <br />
<br />
:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.<br />
<br />
:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.<br />
<br />
:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform." <br />
<br />
:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:OK. What's wrong with this text: <br />
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.<br />
<br />
:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No surprise. I wrote it. <br />
<br />
Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:<br />
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''<br />
<br />
See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism. <br />
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).<br />
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]<br />
<br />
:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]<br />
<br />
:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."<br />
<br />
:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.<br />
<br />
:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."<br />
<br />
:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.<br />
<br />
:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.<br />
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.<br />
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.<br />
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric. <br />
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration. <br />
<br />
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''<br />
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.<br />
<br />
:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.<br />
<br />
:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.<br />
<br />
::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.<br />
<br />
::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.<br />
<br />
::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}<br />
<br />
:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''<br />
<br />
::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.<br />
<br />
:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.<br />
<br />
:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.<br />
<br />
:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.<br />
<br />
:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?<br />
<br />
::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.<br />
<br />
First, we agree that von Papen was<br />
* a catholic<br />
* conservative<br />
* anti-communist<br />
* member of the Zentrum Party<br />
<br />
I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.<br />
<br />
However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.<br />
<br />
* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS. <br />
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933. <br />
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.<br />
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.<br />
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.<br />
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.<br />
<br />
:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.<br />
<br />
:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.<br />
<br />
:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that. <br />
<br />
* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges. <br />
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics. <br />
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet. <br />
<br />
All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Path to Power (Continued) ==<br />
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<--<br />
<br />
Here's the paragraph condensed:<br />
<br />
:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....." <br />
<br />
::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''<br />
<br />
Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.<br />
<br />
:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?<br />
<br />
:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==new img==<br />
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== The evolution of the Hitler article ==<br />
<br />
It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hitler's wax effigy ==<br />
<br />
It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]<br />
<br />
==Improved the article==<br />
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:<br />
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.<br />
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.<br />
*Detailed info regarding his childhood<br />
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== First Sentence ==<br />
<br />
Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Hitler and against various christian groups ==<br />
<br />
Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp<br />
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==<br />
<br />
We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=King_Kong_vs._Godzilla&diff=303994King Kong vs. Godzilla2007-09-30T21:30:26Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Kingu Kongu tai Gojira''''' (translated: ''King Kong vs. Godzilla'') is a 1962 film produced by the Japanese [[Toho Studios]], and directed by Ishiro Honda, who is the most well-known Toho director. The film pits the famous giant [[gorilla]], Kong, against Toho's own monster, [[Godzilla]].<br />
<br />
==Plot==<br />
{{Spoiler}}<br />
On the small Faro Island in the Pacific Ocean, [[King Kong]] lived with the natives of the island. Eventually, this was discovered by a Japanese doctor, who revealed the secret to Mr. Tako, head of the Pacific Pharmaceuticals company.<br />
<br />
Mr. Tako is looking for something to boost the ratings of his television company, and decides that Kong would make the perfect star. So he immediately heads for Faro Island. As soon as he arrives at the native village, a giant [[octopus]] attacked, trying to get at the large jars of red berry juice. However, Kong appears and drives the octopus away, and then sedates himself on the juice and gets transported back to Japan on a large raft.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, an American submarine, Seahawk, gets caught on a large iceberg, the same that [[Godzilla]] was imprisoned in in the previous film, ''[[Godzilla Raids Again]]''. As the rescue helicopter descends, the pilots observe the huge menace breaking out of the ice and escaping into the sea to attack a Japanese Arctic base, destroying it.<br />
<br />
Mr. Tako in the meantime visits the ship that was transporting Kong back to the mainland, but Kong escapes and swims away to Japan, meeting Godzilla in a large valley. Kong attempts to kill his opponent by throwing boulders at him, but is driven off by Godzilla's atomic ray. The JSDF ([[Japanese Self-Defense Force]]) try to kill the two using power lines filled with a million volts of electricity, which seems to stop Gojira but only makes Kong stronger. He goes on a rampage through [[Tokyo]], and in a scene reminescent of the original 1933 film kidnaps a beautiful woman, Fumiko, from a train and carries her to the top of Tokyo Tower, where he is sedated again by the fumes from the berry juice.<br />
<br />
The monster is flown via huge balloons over to Godzilla, where it is hoped that the two will kill each other fighting. Godzilla is apparently victorious at first, knocking Kong out and preparing to roast him, but then an electrical storm arrives and revives Kong. The two begin battling again and this time Kong gets the advantage. The battle continues to the coast, where the two behemoths tumble into the ocean. After a few minutes, Kong emerges and begins to swim back toward Faro Island, and Godzilla is nowhere to be seen.<br />
<br />
{{endspoiler}}<br />
{{stub}}</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=King_Kong_vs._Godzilla&diff=303992King Kong vs. Godzilla2007-09-30T21:30:09Z<p>Scorpion: New page: '''''Kingu Kongu tai Gojira''''' (translated: ''King Kong vs. Godzilla) is a 1962 film produced by the Japanese Toho Studios, and directed by Ishiro Honda, who is the most well-known T...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Kingu Kongu tai Gojira''''' (translated: ''King Kong vs. Godzilla) is a 1962 film produced by the Japanese [[Toho Studios]], and directed by Ishiro Honda, who is the most well-known Toho director. The film pits the famous giant [[gorilla]], Kong, against Toho's own monster, [[Godzilla]].<br />
<br />
==Plot==<br />
{{Spoiler}}<br />
On the small Faro Island in the Pacific Ocean, [[King Kong]] lived with the natives of the island. Eventually, this was discovered by a Japanese doctor, who revealed the secret to Mr. Tako, head of the Pacific Pharmaceuticals company.<br />
<br />
Mr. Tako is looking for something to boost the ratings of his television company, and decides that Kong would make the perfect star. So he immediately heads for Faro Island. As soon as he arrives at the native village, a giant [[octopus]] attacked, trying to get at the large jars of red berry juice. However, Kong appears and drives the octopus away, and then sedates himself on the juice and gets transported back to Japan on a large raft.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, an American submarine, Seahawk, gets caught on a large iceberg, the same that [[Godzilla]] was imprisoned in in the previous film, ''[[Godzilla Raids Again]]''. As the rescue helicopter descends, the pilots observe the huge menace breaking out of the ice and escaping into the sea to attack a Japanese Arctic base, destroying it.<br />
<br />
Mr. Tako in the meantime visits the ship that was transporting Kong back to the mainland, but Kong escapes and swims away to Japan, meeting Godzilla in a large valley. Kong attempts to kill his opponent by throwing boulders at him, but is driven off by Godzilla's atomic ray. The JSDF ([[Japanese Self-Defense Force]]) try to kill the two using power lines filled with a million volts of electricity, which seems to stop Gojira but only makes Kong stronger. He goes on a rampage through [[Tokyo]], and in a scene reminescent of the original 1933 film kidnaps a beautiful woman, Fumiko, from a train and carries her to the top of Tokyo Tower, where he is sedated again by the fumes from the berry juice.<br />
<br />
The monster is flown via huge balloons over to Godzilla, where it is hoped that the two will kill each other fighting. Godzilla is apparently victorious at first, knocking Kong out and preparing to roast him, but then an electrical storm arrives and revives Kong. The two begin battling again and this time Kong gets the advantage. The battle continues to the coast, where the two behemoths tumble into the ocean. After a few minutes, Kong emerges and begins to swim back toward Faro Island, and Godzilla is nowhere to be seen.<br />
<br />
{{endspoiler}}<br />
{{stub}}</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Giant_monster_film&diff=303935Giant monster film2007-09-30T21:06:35Z<p>Scorpion: /* Famous Daikaiju */</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Kaiju''', translated, is a [[Japanese]] word meaning "weird beast" or simply "monster". The word ''daikaiju'' instigates a giant monster, and "daikaiju eiga" is a "giant monster film". The most famous example of a ''kaiju'' is the giant monster [[Godzilla]], who was perhaps the first Japanese daikaiju to hit the screen. Godzilla has since been joined by numerous other monsters with which he has co-starred, and some have had movies all to their own. <br />
<br />
Some kaiju, such as in popular Japanese television, have been based on things such as tomatoes and common household objects (such as toasters and umbrellas).<br />
<br />
==Famous Daikaiju==<br />
<br />
*[[Godzilla]]<br />
*[[Mothra]]<br />
*[[Gamera]]<br />
*[[King Ghidorah]]<br />
*[[Anguirus]]<br />
*[[King Ceaser]]<br />
*[[King Kong]] (from the Japanese film ''[[King Kong vs. Godzilla]]'')<br />
*[[Kumonga]]<br />
*[[Kamacuras]]<br />
*[[SpaceGodzilla]] (Godzilla clone)<br />
*[[Mechagodzilla]] (mechanical double of Godzilla)<br />
*[[Gigan]]<br />
*[[Zilla]] (Toho Studio's name for the creature of the 1998 film)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Giant_monster_film&diff=303934Giant monster film2007-09-30T21:05:43Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Kaiju''', translated, is a [[Japanese]] word meaning "weird beast" or simply "monster". The word ''daikaiju'' instigates a giant monster, and "daikaiju eiga" is a "giant monster film". The most famous example of a ''kaiju'' is the giant monster [[Godzilla]], who was perhaps the first Japanese daikaiju to hit the screen. Godzilla has since been joined by numerous other monsters with which he has co-starred, and some have had movies all to their own. <br />
<br />
Some kaiju, such as in popular Japanese television, have been based on things such as tomatoes and common household objects (such as toasters and umbrellas).<br />
<br />
==Famous Daikaiju==<br />
<br />
*[[Godzilla]]<br />
*[[Mothra]]<br />
*[[Gamera]]<br />
*[[King Ghidorah]]<br />
*[[Anguirus]]<br />
*[[King Ceaser]]<br />
*[[King Kong]] (from the Japanese film ''[[King Kong vs. Godzilla]]''<br />
*[[Kumonga]]<br />
*[[Kamacuras]]<br />
*[[SpaceGodzilla]] (Godzilla clone)<br />
*[[Mechagodzilla]] (mechanical double of Godzilla)<br />
*[[Gigan]]<br />
*[[Zilla]] (Toho Studio's name for the creature of the 1998 film)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Giant_monster_film&diff=303932Giant monster film2007-09-30T21:04:56Z<p>Scorpion: New page: '''''Kaiju''''', translated, is a Japanese word meaning "weird beast" or simply "monster". The word ''daikaiju'' instigates a giant monster, and "daikaiju eiga" is a "giant monster fil...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''Kaiju''''', translated, is a [[Japanese]] word meaning "weird beast" or simply "monster". The word ''daikaiju'' instigates a giant monster, and "daikaiju eiga" is a "giant monster film". The most famous example of a ''kaiju'' is the giant monster [[Godzilla]], who was perhaps the first Japanese daikaiju to hit the screen. Godzilla has since been joined by numerous other monsters with which he has co-starred, and some have had movies all to their own. <br />
<br />
Some kaiju, such as in popular Japanese television, have been based on things such as tomatoes and common household objects (such as toasters and umbrellas).<br />
<br />
==Famous Daikaiju==<br />
<br />
*[[Godzilla]]<br />
*[[Mothra]]<br />
*[[Gamera]]<br />
*[[King Ghidorah]]<br />
*[[Anguirus]]<br />
*[[King Ceaser]]<br />
*[[King Kong]] (from the Japanese film ''[[King Kong vs. Godzilla]]''<br />
*[[Kumonga]]<br />
*[[Kamacuras]]<br />
*[[SpaceGodzilla]] (Godzilla clone)<br />
*[[Mechagodzilla]] (mechanical double of Godzilla)<br />
*[[Gigan]]<br />
*[[Zilla]] (Toho Studio's name for the creature of the 1998 film)</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=This_Present_Darkness&diff=302356This Present Darkness2007-09-28T19:18:04Z<p>Scorpion: /* Plot */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''''This Present Darkness''''' is a 1986 novel, written by [[Frank E. Peretti]]. It is his first novel, and details the interactions between heavenly beings ([[angels]] and [[demon|demons]]) in the small northwestern town of Ashton. It has been widely praised and criticized by many; however, most of the criticisms are based on personal opinions rather than biblical evidence. <br />
<br />
==Title==<br />
<br />
The title of the book is derived from [[Ephesians]] 6:12: "For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over '''this present darkness''', against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places."<br />
<br />
==Plot==<br />
{{spoiler}}<br />
<br />
The plot involves the spiritual fight between angels and demons. The main antagonist in the novel is the [[New Age]] movement, which is the demons' method of decieving the people of Ashton&mdash;and later the world. The main characters are Bernice Krueger (reporter for the town's newspaper, the ''Clarion''), Marshall Hogan (the editor and owner of the ''Clarion''), and Hank Busche (pastor of the Ashton Community Church).<br />
<br />
The story begins on the night of the Ashton Summer Festival. Bernice Krueger takes a photograph of several mysterious people (later revealed to be several of the villains). She is arrested thereafter on false charges of [[prostitution]] and jailed. Marshall Hogan, her boss, visits her the next morning to try to bail her out. The chief of police, Alf Brummel, claims that it was all a "misunderstanding"; Marshall leaves without believing, and later discovers that his daughter Sandy's college professor is teaching Eastern mysticism. <br />
<br />
When he is arrested on false rape charges, he meets with the pastor of the local community church, Hank Busche, who was also arrested on false rape charges. The two, after talking, discover that the Omni Corporation, a mysterious organization that bought the college, is trying to take over the town. The next morning they are let out, the FBI is contacted, and the heads of the Omni Corporation are arrested. A wave of demons that had settled over the town is driven away, and their leader, Rafar, is destroyed.<br />
<br />
{{stub}}<br />
[[category:book]]</div>Scorpionhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Screwtape_Letters&diff=297508The Screwtape Letters2007-09-21T21:14:11Z<p>Scorpion: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''The Screwtape Letters'''(1942) is a novel by [[C.S. Lewis]] which contains 31 letters from an old demon called Screwtape to his apprentice, Wormwood. In the letters, Screwtape gives advice as how to tempt his "patient" and keep him from following God's persuasion. Wormwood fails to bring suitable results. The patient becomes a Christian, has a revival, and dies in a bomb explosion without succumbing to Wormwood's temptation. It is dedicated to [[J.R.R. Tolkien]], his friend and fellow novelist. <ref> [[The Screwtape Letters]] by C.S.Lewis, C.S. Lewis Pte. Ltd., 1996. </ref> <br />
In some versions of this book, at the end, there is an addendum called '''Screwtape proposes a toast'''. In it, Screwtape gives advice to some graduating devils on the state of the battle against "the Enemy"(God). He proposes a toast to "Principal Slubglob and the College!"<ref> [[The Screwtape Letters]] by C.S. Lewis, C.S.Lewis Pte. Ltd., 1996. </ref><br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[category:book|Screwtape Letters]]</div>Scorpion