Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Family values

2012-04-11T02:35:14Z

Stairmaster:

'''''Family values''''' refers to a set of common beliefs held by those who believe the [[family]] is the cornerstone of society. It is a phrase most often associated with [[United States of America|American]] [[conservative]]s.

Family values often overlap with [[conservative]] or [[small town values]] and include:
* Strong emphasis on the sanctity of [[marriage]]
* Opposition to [[homosexual]] indoctrination
* [[Pro-life]] beliefs
* Belief in the importance of religion and [[prayer]] in everyday life
* An emphasis on truth and [[humility]]
* An emphasis on hard-work and strong personal character
* An emphasis on personal responsibility
* Belief that parents, and not [[government]], know what is best for their children
* Emphasis on self reliance, as opposed to government handouts
* Respect for historical precedence and longstanding values
*[[Dog]] ownership

Those who do not agree with these family values sometimes mock those who hold them, even going so far as to call values-holders [[racist]] or [[redneck]]s.

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

Conservative

2012-02-07T23:40:02Z

Stairmaster:

{|align=right border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #c0c0c0; background: #e0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Previous_Breaking_News/Conservatives| Previous Breaking News: Conservatives]]
|}
A '''conservative''' is someone who adheres to principles of personal [[responsibility]], moral values, and [[limited government]], agreeing with [[George Washington]]'s [[Farewell Address]] that "[[religion]] and [[morality]] are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.<ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm United States Department of State] George Washington, farewell address, 1796</ref><ref>[[Merriam-Webster]]'s Online Dictionary has the following definition of conservative: "tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL"[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conservative] Therefore, a conservative Christian would be one that tends to adhere to the morally sound doctrines of the early Christianity and [[Judeo-Christian]] values.</ref>

Former President [[Ronald Reagan]] said, "The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom."<ref>http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html</ref>
[[Image:Aaag.jpg|thumb|Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, is the epitome of American conservatism.]]

The ''sine qua non'' of a conservative is someone who rises above his personal self-interest and promotes moral and economic values beneficial to all. Alternatively, a conservative is willing to learn and advocate the insights of [[economics]] and the morality of the [[Bible]] for the benefit of all, recognizing that the Bible is the most [[logic]]al book ever written. Specifically, conservatives seek or support:

* [[Limited government]] and balanced budgets
* [[Capitalism]] and [[free market|free markets]]
* [[Classroom prayer]]
* Prohibition of [[abortion]] and respect for human life
* The [[death penalty]] for heinous murders proven beyond reasonable doubt
* [[Abstinence]] education
* Traditional [[marriage]], not [[same-sex marriage]]
* [[Family values]], including traditional relationships and division of labor within the household, as well as [[dog]] ownership.
* Respect for differences between men and women, boys and girls
* Laws against [[pornography]]
* The [[Second Amendment]] right to keep and bear arms
* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)
* Parental control of education ([[parental rights]])
* Private medical care and retirement plans
* Canceling failed social support programs
* No [[world government]]
* Enforcement of current laws regarding [[immigration]]
* Respect for our military ... past and present
* Rejection of [[junk science]] such as [[evolution]] and [[global warming]]
* Minimal Taxation
* [[Federalism]] (Separation of powers among the National, State and Local governments)
* Favoring [[states' rights]] over federal power, while accepting the Constitutional role of the federal government
* A strong national defense
* An [[Originalism|Originalist]] interpretation of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]]

__TOC__ 
==Hall of Fame==
Conservative scholar Clinton Rossiter<ref> Rossiter, "The Giants of American Conservatism," ''American Heritage'' 1955 6(6): 56-59, 94-96, online in [[EBSCO]]</ref> names [[Alexander Hamilton]], [[John Adams]], [[John Marshall]], [[Daniel Webster]], [[John C. Calhoun]], [[Elihu Root]], and [[Theodore Roosevelt]] to the "Conservative's Hall of Fame,"'' with John Adams as the greatest of American conservatives.

===Presidents===
Periodically a conservative has been elected president of the United States. The most prominent conservative presidents include:
*[[George Washington]] (1789-1797)
*[[James Monroe]] (1817-1825)
*[[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889, 1893-1897)
*[[Warren G. Harding]] (1921-1923)
*[[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-1929)
*[[Ronald Reagan]] (1981-1989)
*[[George W. Bush]] (2001-2009) (with respect to taxes and Supreme Court nominations)

The most prominent conservative Congresses have been:

*The 80th Congress (elected in 1946)
*The 104th Congress (elected in 1994)

===Movement===
[[Movement conservatives]] are those who accept the logic of conservatism across-the-board, and stand up for its powerful principles despite [[liberal]] ridicule. Movement conservative activists include:
*[[Phyllis Schlafly]], opposed [[ERA]]
*[[Larry McDonald]], Congressman, on board [[KAL 007]] when shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]].
*[[Jesse Helms]], Senator, specialist in foreign policy
*[[Pat Buchanan]], commentator
*[[Jerry Falwell]], religion
*[[Michele Bachmann]], congresswoman
*[[Ann Coulter]], columnist
*[[Rush Limbaugh]], radio
*[[Michelle Malkin]], commentator
*[[Glenn Beck]], commentator

===Key leaders===
*[[Barry Goldwater]] - 1964 Republican candidate, lost to liberal Democrat [[Lyndon Johnson]] but revived the conservative movement inside the GOP
*[[Russell Kirk]] - Theorist & intellectual
*[[Irving Kristol|Irving]] and [[William Kristol]] - Notable [[neoconservatives]]
*[[Margaret Thatcher]] - British prime minister between 1979 and 1990, held views similar to Reagan's
*[[Milton Friedman]] - Chicago-school [[libertarian]] [[economist]], influential during Reagan administration; leader of the [[Chicago School of Economics]]

==US Voters==
In America, most conservatives support the [[Republican Party]], but not exclusively so. In the 2008 election, 35% of the voters identified themselves as conservatives. Of them, 78% voted for [[John McCain]] and 20% for [[Barack Hussein Obama]], with the 20% accounting for Obama's margin of victory. Only 22% of the voters were liberal; they favored Obama 89%-10%. In the middle were 44% who called themselves moderates. They split for Obama by 60%-39%. (Minor candidates won 2% of the vote.)<ref> See [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1 Presidential 2008 Exit Poll]</ref>
[[File:Conservative-republican-brain.jpg|thumb|350px]]
===Religious differences between political conservatives and political liberals===
The Barna poll conducted in November 2008 shows significant differences between the 32% of Americans who called themselves as “mostly conservative” on social and political matters; and the 17% who called themselves “mostly liberal” on social and political matters. The others --50%--were moderates with positions somewhere in-between.<ref> See [http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/258-survey-shows-how-liberals-and-conservatives-differ-on-matters-of-faith on line results] </ref>

Some findings:
Political liberals are less than half as likely as political conservatives to firmly believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches (27% versus 63%, respectively); to strongly believe that [[Satan]] is real (17% versus 36%); and to firmly contend that they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others (23% versus 48%).

[Note: "Liberal" and "conservative" in this survey are based on politics]

Liberals are also far less likely than conservatives to strongly believe each of the following:
*their religious faith is very important in their life (54% of liberals vs. 82% of conservatives);
*a person cannot earn their way into [[Heaven]] by doing good deeds or being a good person (23% vs. 37%);
*their faith is becoming an increasingly important moral guide in their life (38% vs. 70%);
*the church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (37% vs. 62%);
*their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength and soul (43% vs. 76%);

political conservatives were more likely than liberals to:
*read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (57% vs. 33%, respectively)
*attend a religious service during the past week (62% vs. 35%)
*[[pray]] to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (91% vs. 76%)
*share their religious beliefs with others, during the past year (56% vs. 39%, among the born again Christians interviewed from each segment)
*have ever participated in a short-term missions trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (12% vs. 6%)

*2% of conservatives and 11% of liberals were [[atheist]] or [[agnostic]]
*15% of conservatives and 2% of liberals were [[Evangelical Christians|Christian evangelicals]]
*conservatives were twice as likely as liberals to be categorized as [[born again]], based on their theological views about salvation (63% vs. 32%)
*21% of conservatives were associated with the [[Roman Catholic Church]], compared to 30% among the liberals.

== Barack Obama and American Conservatism Backlash ==
In October of 2009, Niles Gardiner reported in the [[Britain|British]] newspaper ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'':
{{cquote|This week’s striking [[Gallup]] poll on political ideology is further confirmation that the United States is in essence a conservative nation, which has ironically become even more conservative under [[Barack Obama]]. According to Gallup, 40 percent of Americans describe their political views as conservative, 36 percent as moderate and 20 percent as liberal. This is the first time conservatives have outnumbered moderates in America since 2004.<ref>http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100014891/barack-obama-has-failed-to-defeat-conservatism-in-america/</ref>}}

== Conservative news organizations ==
:''See also: [[Conservative news organizations]] and [[Conservative media]]''
Some of the more notable news organizations which tend to be more conservative are [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsMax]]. [[Fox News]], though often called conservative, tends to be more [[neoconservative]] than [[conservative]].

== Conservative magazines and blogs ==
:''See also: [[Conservative media]]''
Well known conservative magazines in the United States include ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Policy Review]]'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'' and others.

Some notable [[Conservative blogs|conservative political blogs]] include the [[Heritage Foundation]]'s Policy Weblog, ''[[Human Events]]'', [[Michelle Malkin]], Newsbusters, Townhall.com and others.

== Neoconservatives ==

American commentators who ally themselves with the conservative movement but reject its religious or moral underpinnings are generally known as [[neoconservatives]].<ref>Jonah Goldberg, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWMxNWNiNDJkY2JmNTExY2E1MzdkYWU3MWU1MTBiOGU= "What Is a 'Conservative'?"], [[National Review|National Review Online]], 11 May 2005</ref>

In the United States, conservatives are generally characterized by the following beliefs:

# Support of [[limited government]].
# A preference for freedom of opportunity over equality of result.
# [[Patriotism]], [[nationalism]], and support of a strong defense.
# Support of the institution of [[marriage]].
# Emphasis on social values, like [[prayer]] and [[pro-life]] principles.

In contrast, neoconservatives generally support [[Big government|bigger government]] and [[globalism]], and tend to downplay the significance of social values.

== Paleoconservatives ==

[[Paleoconservatives]] are conservatives who are more focused on social issues and American sovereignty, and are suspicious of both big government and big business. They also lean against foreign interventionalism. Neoconservatives criticize this with the pejorative term of "[[isolationism]]," as they believe in promoting [[democracy]] worldwide, even where different religious or value systems are incompatible with democracy-induced changes in control.

Among paleoconservatives was Democratic Congressman from Georgia, [[Larry McDonald]]. He was also second Chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], and President of Western Goals. McDonald was aboard [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] when it was shot down by the [[Soviet Union|Soviets]] near [[Moneron Island]] in 1983.

==Fiscal Conservatism vs. Social Conservatism==

''For further details on the two related philosophies, see [[Fiscal conservatism]] and [[Social conservatism]]''

Recently, a division has been created between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism centers around a low and [[Balanced budget|balanced]] government [[budget]], and generally is opposed to programs such as [[Social Security]] and [[Medicare]]. Its primary goal is to reduce government spending significantly. Social Conservatism, on the other hand, focuses on the moral issues of conservatism. A social conservative will oppose [[same-sex marriage]], [[abortion]], and the teaching of [[evolution]] in schools. The majority of Conservatives (including most of the [[Republican Party]]) fall into both categories, however some fall into one or the other, but not both. Notably, [[Libertarians]] are strong fiscal conservatives but are not socially conservative. For instance, the [[Libertarian Party]] Platform <ref>[http://www.lp.org/platform]</ref> expresses support for the fiscally conservative principles of ending publicly funded [[welfare]] and [[healthcare]] programs as well as reducing government spending overall significantly. However, it also expresses support for [[same-sex marriage]] (with some libertarians leaning towards the ultimate goal of total [[marriage privatization]]) as well as maintaining the legal status of abortion.

Some Republicans and [[Democratic Party|Democrats]] also fit one category but not the other. Former [[New Mexico]] governor [[Gary Johnson]], who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, was deemed "the most fiscally conservative governor" while he was in office (and probably earned that honor given all the spending cuts he made) but at the same time, he supports [[marriage privatization]] and [[abortion]] (though he believes ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' should be overturned on Constitutional grounds). Also, several Democrats have expressed opposition to same-sex marriage and/or abortion, but still support liberal fiscal programs such as Social Security. They would be the opposite of Johnson - socially conservative but fiscally liberal.

== Personal conservatism ==
Because Conservatives often have strong political views, there can be a tendency to see conservatism as a purely political ideology. However, there is also a strong personal side to conservatism - being a conservative is as much about applying conservative values to one's everyday life as it is about campaigning and voting for conservative candidates. In general, conservatives can be characterized by a strong sense of personal [[morality]], a willingness to observe their culture's traditions and customs, and a desire to be respectable and to show due respect to other members of the community.
==History of American conservatism==
===Textbook problems===
:''See also: [[Textbook bias]]''
College-level teaching about conservatism has been distorted by a "liberal state paradigm"--that is, [[textbook]]s usually interpret recent American history in terms of the origins and successes of political liberalism--especially the [[New Deal]], the [[welfare state]], [[labor union]]s, and [[Civil Rights Movement|Civil Rights]] for blacks and [[equality]] for women. Conservative politics is usually defined as a reaction: as a [[free market]] reply to the growth of [[big government]]; as an expression of outrage against declining support for tradition and Christian morality. Where the violent Wobblies ([[Industrial Workers of the World|IWW]]) and illegal sit down strikes of the 1930s are seen as heroic, exposing [[Communist]] subversion by [[Joe McCarthy]] is denounced as the nadir of political morality.<ref> See Leonard Moore, "Approaching Conservatism," ''OAH Magazine of History,'' 17 (January 2003) [http://www.oah.org/pubs/magazine/conservatism/moore.html online edition]</ref>

===Loyalists===
The [[Loyalists]] of the [[American Revolution]] were mostly political conservatives, some of whom produced political discourse of a high order, including lawyer [[Joseph Galloway]] and governor-historian [[Thomas Hutchinson]]. However when the crisis came, they stood with the Crown as it tried to destroy American political liberties. After the war, the great majority remained in the U.S. and became citizens, but some leaders emigrated to other places in the British Empire. [[Samuel Seabury]] was a Loyalist who stayed and as the first American bishop played a major role in shaping the [[Episcopal]] religion, a stronghold of conservative social values. While the Loyalist political tradition died out totally it the U.S., it survives in Canadian conservatism.

===Founding Fathers===
The [[Founding Fathers]] created the single most important set of political ideas in American history, known as [[Republicanism]], which all groups, liberal and conservative alike, have drawn from. Two parties were named "Republican"-- the one founded in 1794 by [[Thomas Jefferson]] and [[James Madison]] (it disappeared in the 1820s), and the modern GOP founded in 1854.

During the [[First Party System]] (1790s-1820s) the [[Federalist Party]], led by [[Alexander Hamilton]], developed an important variation of republicanism that can be considered conservative. Rejecting [[monarchy]] and [[aristocracy]], they emphasized civic virtue as the core American value. The Federalists spoke for the propertied interests and the upper classes of the cities. They envisioned a modernizing land of banks and factories, with a strong army and navy. [[George Washington]] was their great hero.

On many issues American conservatism also derives from the republicanism of [[Thomas Jefferson]] and his followers, especially [[John Randolph of Roanoke]] and his "Old Republicans" or "[[Quids]]." They idealized the [[yeoman]] farmer as the epitome of civic virtue, warned that banking and industry led to [[corruption]], that is to the illegitimate use of government power for private ends. Jefferson himself was a vehement opponent of what today is called "[[judicial activism]]".
<ref>[http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1030.htm]</ref> The Jeffersonians stressed small government.

===Ante-Bellum: Calhoun and Webster===
During the [[Second Party System]] (1830-54) the [[Whig Party]] attracted most conservatives, such as [[Daniel Webster]] of New England. [[Daniel Webster]] and other leaders of the [[Whig Party]], called it the conservative party in the late 1830s.<ref>The word was originally used in the [[French Revolution]]. The British used it after 1839 to describe a major party. The first American usage is by Whigs who called themselves "Conservatives" in the late 1830s. Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh, ''American Political terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) 94-97.</ref> [[John C. Calhoun]], a Democrat, articulated a sophisticated conservatism in his writings. [[Richard Hofstadter]] (1948) called him "The [[Karl Marx|Marx]] of the Master Class." Calhoun argued that a conservative minority should be able to limit the power of a "majority dictatorship" because tradition represents the wisdom of past generations. (This argument echoes one made by [[Edmund Burke]], the founder of British conservatism, in ''Reflections on the Revolution in France'' (1790)). Calhoun is considered the father of the idea of minority rights, a position adopted by liberals in the 1960s in dealing with [[Civil Rights]].

The conservatism of the antebellum period is contested territory; conservatives of the 21st century disagree over what comprises their heritage. Thus [[William J. Bennett]] (2006), a prominent conservative leader, warns conservatives to NOT honor Calhoun, [[Know-Nothings]], [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] and 20th century [[isolationist]]s.

===Lincoln to Cleveland===
Since 1865 the [[Republican Party]] has identified itself with President [[Abraham Lincoln]], who was the ideological heir of the [[Whig Party|Whigs]] and of both [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]] and [[Alexander Hamilton|Hamilton]]. As the [[Gettysburg Address]] shows, Lincoln cast himself as a second Jefferson bringing a second birth of freedom to the nation that had been born 86 years before in Jefferson's [[Declaration of Independence|Declaration]]. The [[Copperheads (politics)|Copperheads]] of the [[American Civil War|Civil War]] reflected a [[reactionary]] opposition to modernity of the sort repudiated by modern conservatives. A few libertarians have adopted a neo-Copperhead position, arguing Lincoln was a dictator who created an all-powerful government.

In the late 19th century the [[Bourbon Democrat]]s, led by President [[Grover Cleveland]], preached against corruption, high taxes (protective [[tariff]]s), and [[imperialism]], and supported the [[gold standard]] and business interests. They were overthrown by [[William Jennings Bryan]] in 1896, who moved the mainstream of the [[Democratic Party]] permanently to the left.

The 1896 presidential election was the first with a conservative versus liberal theme in the way in which these terms are now understood. Republican [[William McKinley]] won using the pro-business slogan "[[sound money]] and protection," while Bryan's anti-bank populism had a lasting effect on economic policies of the Democratic Party.

[[William Graham Sumner]], [[Yale University|Yale]] professor (1872-1910) and polymath, vigorously promoted a libertarian conservative ethic. After dallying with [[Social Darwinism]] under the influence of [[Herbert Spencer]], he rejected [[evolution]] in his later works, and strongly opposed imperialism. He opposed monopoly and [[paternalism]] in theory as a threat to equality, democracy and middle class values, but was vague on what to do about it.<ref>Curtis, Bruce. "William Graham Sumner 'On the Concentration of Wealth.'" Journal of American History 1969 55(4): 823-832.</ref>

===Early 20th century===
In the [[Progressive Era]] (1890s-1932), regulation of industry expanded as conservatives led by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] of [[Rhode Island]] were put on the defensive. However, Aldrich's proposal for a strong national banking system was enacted as the [[Federal Reserve System]] in 1913. [[Theodore Roosevelt]], the dominant personality of the era, was both liberal and conservative by turns. As a liberal he took a tough [[Regulation|regulatory]] approach toward businesses and [[trust]]s, and (post-presidency) fought for social insurance for the elderly. As a conservative he led the fight to make the country a major naval power, and demanded entry into [[World War I]] to stop what he saw as the [[German Empire|German]] attacks on civilization. [[William Howard Taft]] promoted a strong federal judiciary that would overrule excessive legislation. Taft defeated Roosevelt on that issue in 1912, forcing Roosevelt out of the GOP and turning it to the right for decades. As president, Taft remade the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] with five appointments; he himself presided as chief justice in 1921-30, the only former president ever to do so.

Pro-business Republicans returned to dominance in 1920 with the election of President [[Warren G. Harding]]. The presidency of [[Calvin Coolidge]] (1923-29) was a high water mark for conservatism, both politically and intellectually. Classic writing of the period includes ''Democracy and Leadership'' (1924) by Irving Babbitt and [[H.L. Mencken]]'s magazine ''American Mercury'' (1924-33). The [[Efficiency Movement]] attracted many conservatives such as [[Herbert Hoover]] with its pro-business, pro-engineer approach to solving social and economic problems. In the 1920s many American conservatives generally maintained anti-foreign attitudes and, as usual, were disinclined toward changes to the healthy economic climate of the age.

During the [[Great Depression]], other conservatives participated in the taxpayers' revolt at the local level. From 1930 to 1933, Americans formed as many as 3,000 taxpayers' leagues to protest high [[property tax]]es. These groups endorsed measures to limit and rollback taxes, lowered penalties on tax delinquents, and cuts in government spending. A few also called for illegal resistance (or tax strikes). The best known of these was led by the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in [[Chicago]] which, at its height, had 30,000 dues-paying members.

An important intellectual movement, calling itself [[Southern Agrarians]] and based in Nashville, brought together like-minded novelists, poets and historians who argued that modern values undermined the traditions of American [[Republicanism]] and civic virtue.

The Depression brought [[liberal]]s to power under President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] (1933). Indeed the term "liberal" now came to mean a supporter of the [[New Deal]] and Roosevelt's powerful [[New Deal Coalition]]. In 1934 [[Al Smith]] and pro-business Democrats formed the [[American Liberty League]] to fight the new liberalism, but failed to stop Roosevelt's shifting the Democratic party to the left. In 1936 the Republicans rejected Hoover and tried the more liberal [[Alf Landon]], who carried only [[Maine]] and [[Vermont]]. When Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 the conservatives finally cooperated across party lines and defeated it with help from Vice President [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to purge the conservative Democrats in the 1938 election. The conservatives in Congress then formed a bipartisan informal [[Conservative Coalition]] of Republicans and southern Democrats. It largely controlled Congress from 1937 to 1964. Its most prominent leaders were Senator [[Robert Taft]], a Republican of [[Ohio]], and Senator [[Richard Russell]], Democrat of [[Georgia]].
[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the Democrats]]

In the United States, the [[Old Right]], also called the Old Guard, was a group of [[libertarianism|libertarian]], free-market anti-interventionists, originally associated with Midwestern Republicans and Southern Democrats. The Republicans (but not the southern Democrats) were [[isolationist]]s in 1939-41, (see [[America First]]), and later opposed [[NATO]] and U.S. military intervention in the [[Korean War]].

===Later 20th century: Goldwater, Buckley, the Dixiecrats===
By 1950, [[American liberalism]] was so dominant intellectually that liberal critic [[Lionel Trilling]] could dismiss contemporary conservatism as "irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas." <ref>Lapham 2004</ref> But just as Trilling was writing a revival was underway. In the 1950s, principles for a conservative political movement were hashed out in books like [[Russell Kirk]]'s ''The Conservative Mind'' (1953) and in the highly influential new magazine ''[[National Review]]'', founded by [[William F. Buckley]] in 1955.

Whereas Taft's [[Old Right]] had been [[isolationist]] the new conservatism favored American intervention overseas to oppose [[communism]]. It looked to the [[Founding Fathers]] for historical inspiration as opposed to [[John C. Calhoun|Calhoun]] and the antebellum South.

The success of the [[Civil Rights movement]] came in the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] and the [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965. Most conservatives supported both, but [[Barry Goldwater]] opposed them. Until then southern whites (both liberal and conservative) had been locked into the Democratic party. That lock was now broken and southern conservatives started voting for Republican candidates for president in 1964-68, and by the 1990s they were also voting for GOP candidates for state and local office. The southern blacks now began to vote in large numbers, and they became Democrats, moving that party in the south to the left. By 2000, for the first time, all southern states had a conservative GOP and a liberal Democratic party. The region favored the GOP heavily in presidential elections, but split in state contests. In 2008, however, the [[Barack Hussein Obama|Obama]] campaign broke into the solid Republican South, carrying [[Florida]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

Goldwater, a charismatic figure whose intense opposition to all [[New Deal]] programs angered liberals, was defeated in a landslide in 1964. Goldwater faded and his supporters regrouped under new leadership, especially that of [[Ronald Reagan]] in [[California]], and regained strength nationally in the 1966 elections. Conservatives voted for [[Richard Nixon]] in 1968, who narrowly defeated the New Deal champion [[Hubert Humphrey]], and southern demagogue [[George Wallace]]. Nixon had come to terms with both the Goldwater wing of the party and the still-influential Rockefeller Republicans (Republicans from the [[Northeast]] who supported many New Deal programs).

===Nixon, Reagan, and Bush===

The Republican administrations of President [[Richard Nixon]] in the [[1970s]] were characterized more by their emphasis on ''[[realpolitik]]'', [[détente]], and economic policies such as [[wage and price controls]], than by their adherence to conservative rhetoric and more liberal actions.

In the eight years of [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency 1981-89 the American conservative movement achieved ascendancy. In 1980 the GOP took control of the Senate for the first time since 1954, and [[conservative principles]] dominated Reagan's economic and foreign policies, with [[supply side economics]] as well as a strict opposition to [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] [[Communism]]. Reagan promised to cut [[welfare]] spending but failed to do so. He did cut taxes, but raised [[military spending]] and created large [[federal deficit]]s that turned out working to our advantage, because at that time, deficits didn't matter. It should be known that the Republicans also [[Balanced budget|balanced]] the [[budget]] in the late 1990s.

An icon of the American conservative movement, Reagan is credited by his supporters with transforming American politics, galvanizing the Republican Party, uniting a coalition of economic conservatives who supported his supply side economic policies, known as "[[Reaganomics]]," foreign policy conservatives who favored his success in stopping and rolling back Communism, and social conservatives who identified with Reagan's conservative religious and social ideals.

==Reactions to Obama==
"Forty percent of Americans now self-identify as conservatives — double the amount of self-professed liberals — largely because independents are beginning to take sides." [http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/winter11/spalding.html]

Compare [[Progressive liberalism]].

==Conservatives in Australia==

Australia was once more conservative than England but sweeping [[gun control]] laws pushed the nation leftward toward greater dependency on government in the last decade. In 2009, opposition to government control based on alleged [[global warming]] galvanized conservatives there and they led the [[Liberal Party of Australia]] to a repudiation of an emissions trading scheme.<ref>http://www.smh.com.au/national/shock-result-as-abbott-wins-liberal-leadership-by-one-vote--ets-dead-20091201-k1uz.html</ref> Conservatives also support smaller political parties such as the [[Family First Party]].

==Conservatives in Britain==

In the [[United Kingdom]], the [[Conservative Party]] is the major partner in the governing coalition. The party's current leader, [[David Cameron]],<ref>[http://www.conservatives.com Conservative party UK]</ref> has been [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] of the UK since May 2010.

Up until the mid-19th century, the forerunners of the Conservatives were known as [[Tory|Tories]], and the name has persisted as a common nickname both for the political party and those believed to be in agreement with it. Since the mid-to-late 1970s, British conservatives have been defined by an advocacy of [[laissez-faire]] economics, privatization and lower taxation. In recent years the Conservative Party has moved away from the social conservatism which once characterized it, and the current party policy includes, for example, support for [[abortion]] on demand, gay [[civil partnership]], the [[Kyoto Treaty]] and to oppose [[capital punishment]] (although it should be noted that such policies have little support among the party's grassroots membership) <ref>John Charmley, ''A History of Conservative Politics Since 1830'', (2nd ed. 2008) </ref>

[[Margaret Thatcher]] revolutionized the British conservatives much like Reagan revolutionized American conservatives. During her tenure as Prime Minister, she cut taxes, trimmed back at government waste, and exercised a strong national defense abroad (including the [[Falklands War]] of 1982).

Levels of prayer and worship are much lower in [[England]] and [[Wales]] than in the U.S., and religious issues thereby play less of a role in public discourse. However, religious issues remain a significant factor in [[Northern Ireland]] and in 2008 religious issues were significant during a special election in [[Scotland]].

In common with conservatives in many other countries, British Conservatives tend towards a patriotic rather than internationalist outlook, and are traditionally skeptical of the [[European Union]].

The broadcast media (dominated by the [[BBC]]) is almost exclusively [[liberal]] in tone. The print media is different with pro-Conservative newspapers like the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', ''[[Daily Express]]'' and ''[[Daily Telegraph]]'' selling more copies than their rivals.<ref>[http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/An_introduction_to_newspapers_in_the_UK Media UK; Introduction to newspapers in the UK]</ref>

== Conservatism and the French Revolution ==

Conservatism in France and the continent generally arose in the after 1790 as a response to the radicalism of the [[French Revolution]].

== Benefits of Conservatism ==

Several facets of conservatism function in unison to make it an effective and powerful philosophy. Conservatism emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and initiative; this allows the [[best of the public]] to rise to their natural level of achievement. Conservatives recognize that [[big government]] fosters dependency and stifles individual achievement--and thus, weakens society as a whole.

At the same time, conservatives also recognize that with individual freedom comes [[individual responsibility]]. In the absence of a hand-holding [[nanny state]], it is imperative that each individual take responsibility for his own actions, and exercise his rights and freedoms wisely and with discretion. Thus, [[social conservatism]] is also critical to a successful society, as it emphasizes the importance of [[morality]], duty, and responsibility to one's self and fellow men.

== Also See ==
*[[Conservative resources]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[More News/Conservatives|Articles about '''Conservatives''' from "More News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Essay:Fair and balanced is not part of the Conservative platform]]
*[[Conservative politicians]]
*[[Liberal]]
*[[Larry McDonald]]

==Further reading==
* Critchlow, Donald T. ''The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History'' (2007)
* Filler, Louis. ''Dictionary of American Conservatism The First Complete Guide to Issues, People, Organizations and Events'' (1987), useful older encyclopedia
* Frank, Thomas. ''What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America'' (2005), a liberal perspective [http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685789&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Frohnen, Bruce et al eds. ''American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia'' (2006), the most detailed reference
* Judis, John B. ''William F. Buckley, Jr.: Patron Saint of the Conservatives'' (1988) [http://www.amazon.com/William-F-Buckley-Jr-Conservatives/dp/0743217977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207759425&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Kirk, Russell. ''The Conservative Mind''. (7th ed. 2001). highly influential conservative history of ideas [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Link, William A. ''Righteous warrior: Jesse Helms and the rise of modern conservatism'' (2008) 643 pages
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''The Right Nation,'' (2004) influential survey [http://www.amazon.com/Right-Nation-Conservative-Power-America/dp/B000F71124/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205919226&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Micklethwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. ''God Is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith Is Changing the World'' (2009)
* Nash, George. ''The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945'' (2006), excellent scholarly history. [http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Intellectual-Movement-America-Since/dp/1933859121/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241925238&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
*Pemberton, William E. ''Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/exit-with-honor-the-life-and-presidency-of-ronald-reagan-by-william-e-pemberton.jsp online edition]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus'' (2004) on 1964 [http://www.amazon.com/Before-Storm-Goldwater-Unmaking-Consensus/dp/0809028581/ref=sr_1_1/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193684721&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
*Perlstein, Rick. ''Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Nixonland-Rise-President-Fracturing-America/dp/074324303X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241924189&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Schneider, Gregory L. ed. ''Conservatism in America Since 1930: A Reader'' (2003)
*Schoenwald; Jonathan . ''A Time for Choosing: The Rise of Modern American Conservatism'' (2002) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104931191 online edition] also [http://www.historyebook.org/ online at ACLS e-books]
* Schweizer, Peter, and Wynton C. Hall, eds. ''Landmark Speeches of the American Conservative Movement'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Landmark-Speeches-American-Conservative-Movement/dp/1585445983/ref=sr_1_4/103-4827826-5463040?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193685365&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/conservatives/ What Liberals Say - Category: Conservatives], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://www.youtube.com/user/rescueKAL007#p/a/FD3DE4F0642C350C/0/1c8v-kgLvhM Pat Buchanan's "Crossfire" interview with [[Larry McDonald]] 3 months before downing of [[KAL 007]], Ron Paul intro]

[[Category:Conservative]]
[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:American History]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:New Deal]]

*[http://www.conservativedirectory.com Directory of Conservative Websites - Category: Conservatives], [[Politics]]

[[Category:Conservative]]
{{Conservatism}}

William Howard Taft

2012-02-05T02:37:41Z

Stairmaster: /* Taft family */

{{Officeholder
|name=William H. Taft
|image=William_taft.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Helen Herron Taft
|religion=[[Unitarian]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/president
|country=the United States
|number=27th
|terms=March 4, 1909 – March 4, 1913
|vp=[[James Sherman]] (1909–1912)
|preceded=[[Theodore Roosevelt]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Woodrow Wilson]]
}}
{{Officeholder/Supreme Court Justice
|role=Chief
|nominator=[[Warren Harding]]
|terms=June 30, 1921 – February 3, 1930
|preceded=[[Edward D. White]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Charles Evans Hughes]]
}}
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=War
|number=42nd
|deputy=n
|president=[[Theodore Roosevelt]]
|terms=February 1, 1904 – June 30, 1908
|preceded=Elihu Root
|former=y
|succeeded=Luke E. Wright
}}
}}
'''William Howard Taft''' was the 27th [[President of the United States of America]], serving from 1909 to 1913, and served as the 10th [[Chief Justice of the United States]]. A leader of the conservative half of the [[Progressive Era|progressive]] wing of the [[Republican Party]] in the early 20th century, his greatest achievement was to expel the left wing of the GOP in 1912 and to move the party, and the Supreme Court, to the right, for a generation.

Taft served as [[Solicitor General of the United States]], a federal judge, [[Governor-General of the Philippines]], and Secretary of War before being nominated for President by the 1908 Republican National Convention with the critical backing of the incumbent President and Taft's close friend [[Theodore Roosevelt]].

Taft, scion of the leading political family in Ohio, pioneered in [[international arbitration]]; his advocacy of [[world peace]] verging on [[pacifism]].

His presidency was characterized by raising the tariff, breaking up large monopolies, and promoting world peace. He failed in a new tariff program with Canada. In politics the GOP was splitting in half, and Taft, in the middle, finally joined the conservative camp; Roosevelt broke with him in 1911, charging Taft was too reactionary. Taft and the conservatives were alarmed at Roosevelt's attacks on the judiciary, and took control of the party machinery. Taft [[Republican_Party#Progressive_insurgents_vs._Conservatives|defeated]] Roosevelt for the Republican nomination in a bruising battle in 1912 that forced Roosevelt out of the GOP and left Taft people in charge for decades. During [[World War I]] he helped set national labor policy that reduced strikes and generated union support for the national cause. In 1921, he became Chief Justice. As President and Chief Justice he helped make the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, much more powerful in shaping national policy.

==Early life==
Taft was born in [[Cincinnati, Ohio]], the third of five children. His mother, Louisa Torrey, was a graduate of [[Mount Holyoke College]]. His father, [[Alphonso Taft]], came to Cincinnati in 1839 to open a law practice. Alphonso Taft was a prominent Republican and served as Secretary of War under President [[Ulysses S. Grant]].

Taft was brought up in the [[Unitarian]] church and remained a faithful Unitarian his entire life.<ref> He said, "I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe." </ref> At age 18, he met his future wife, Helen Herron, in Cincinnati; she and Taft courted while he was away at college. The [[William Howard Taft National Historic Site]] is the Taft boyhood home. The house in which he was born has been restored to its original appearance. It includes four period rooms which reflect the family life during Taft's boyhood. The home also includes second floor exhibits highlighting Taft's life and career, as well as an educational center.<ref>[http://www.nps.gov/wiho ''http://www.nps.gov/wiho'']</ref>

===Education===
Taft attended public schools in Cincinnati, then (like most Tafts) he attended [[Yale College]] in New Haven, Connecticut. He was a member of "Skull and Bones", the secret society co-founded by his father in 1832. In 1878, Taft graduated from Yale, ranking second in his class out of 121. He then attended Cincinnati Law School, a third-rate institution, graduating with a Bachelor of Laws in 1880. While in law school, he worked on the local GOP newspaper ''[[The Cincinnati Commercial]]''.<ref>Pringle (1939) v. 1 </ref>

===Career===
After admission to the Ohio bar, Taft was appointed Assistant Prosecutor of Hamilton County, Ohio, based in Cincinnati. In 1882, he was appointed local Collector of Internal Revenue. People who disagreed with Taft's beliefs and opposed the decisions he made called him a “trust buster”. Taft married his longtime sweetheart, Helen Herron, in Cincinnati in 1886. In 1887, he was appointed as a judge of the Ohio Superior Court. In 1890, President [[Benjamin Harrison]] appointed him [[Solicitor General of the United States]]. In 1892 Harrison appointed him to the newly created Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, a post which he held until 1900. It was then that he met Theodore Roosevelt for the first time.<ref>Pringle (1939) v. 1 </ref>

In addition to his judgeship, between 1896 and 1900 Taft also served as the first Dean and a Professor of Constitutional Law at the [[University of Cincinnati]]. Eventually, he became the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit. One of Taft's most famous opinions was in ''[[Addyston Pipe and Steel Company v. United States]]'' (1898).<ref>Pringle (1939) v. 1 </ref>
==Philippines==
In 1900, President [[William McKinley]] appointed Taft as the chairman of a commission to organize a civilian government in the [[Philippines]], which had been ceded to the United States by [[Spain]] following the [[Spanish-American War]] and the 1898 Treaty of Paris. Although Taft initially had been opposed to the annexation of the islands and told McKinley that his real ambition was to become a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, he reluctantly accepted the appointment when McKinley suggested that he would be "the better judge for this experience."

From 1901 to 1903, Taft served as the first civilian Governor-General of the Philippines, a position in which he was very popular among both Americans and Filipinos. He resolved one of the most aggravating problems in 1902, going to Rome to negotiate with [[Pope Leo XIII]] for the purchase of lands in the Philippines owned by the Roman Catholic Church. Taft then convinced Congress to appropriate $7,239,000 to purchase the lands, which he sold to Filipinos on easy terms. In 1903, President Roosevelt offered Taft a seat on the Supreme Court, but he reluctantly declined when Filipino groups begged him to remain in Manila as Governor-General.<ref>Pringle (1939) v. 1 </ref>

==Secretary of War, 1904-1908==
In 1904, Roosevelt appointed Taft as [[Secretary of War]]. Roosevelt made the basic policy decisions regarding military affairs, using Taft as a well-traveled spokesman who campaigned for Roosevelt's re-election in 1904. Taft met with the Emperor of [[Japan]], who alerted him of the probability of war with [[Russia]]. In 1906, Roosevelt sent troops to restore order in [[Cuba]] during the revolt led by General Enrique Loynaz del Castillo, and Taft temporarily became the Civil Governor of Cuba, personally negotiating with General Castillo for a peaceful end to the revolt. In 1907, Secretary Taft helped supervise the beginning of construction on the [[Panama Canal]]. Taft repeatedly had told Roosevelt he wanted to be Chief Justice, not President (and not an associate justice), but there was no vacancy and Roosevelt had other plans. He gave Taft more responsibilities in addition to the Philippines and the Panama Canal. For a while, Taft was Acting Secretary of State. When Roosevelt was away, Taft in effect was the Acting President.<ref>Pringle (1939) v. 1 </ref>

==Presidency 1909-1913==
[[Image:1909.jpg|thumb|270px|As Roosevelt leaves office he gives Taft custody of his "baby" (TR's policies)]]
==1908==
After serving for nearly two full terms, the popular Roosevelt refused to run for a third term in 1908. Roosevelt certified Taft as a genuine "progressive", pushing through the nomination of his Secretary of War for the presidency. At the age 51 Taft easily defeated liberal Democrat, [[William Jennings Bryan]], running for the third time.
===Progressive===
Taft considered himself a "progressive" because of his deep belief in "The Law" as the scientific device that should be used by judges to solve society's problems. Taft proved a less adroit politician than Roosevelt and seemed to lack the energy and personal magnetism of his mentor, not to mention the publicity devices, the dedicated supporters, and the broad base of public support that made Roosevelt so formidable. When Roosevelt realized that lowering the tariff would risk severe tensions inside the Republican Party, pitting producers (manufacturers and farmers) against department stores and consumers, he stopped talking about the issue. Taft ignored the risks and tackled the tariff boldly, on the one hand encouraging reformers to fight for lower rates, then cutting deals with conservative leaders that kept overall rates high. The resulting [[Payne-Aldrich tariff]] of 1909 was too high for most reformers, but instead of blaming this on Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]] and big business, Taft took credit, calling it the best bill to come from the Republican Party. Again, he had managed to alienate all sides.<ref>Pringle (1939) v. 1 </ref>

Unlike Roosevelt, Taft never attacked business or businessmen in his rhetoric. However, he was attentive to the law, so he launched 90 antitrust suits, including one against the country's largest corporation, [[U.S. Steel]], for an acquisition which Roosevelt personally had approved. As a result, Taft lost the support of antitrust reformers (who disliked his conservative rhetoric), of big business (which disliked his actions), and of Roosevelt, who felt humiliated by his protégé. Progressives within the Republican party began agitating against Taft. Senator [[Robert M. LaFollette, Sr.|Robert LaFollette]] of Wisconsin created the National Progressive Republican League] to replace Taft at the national level; his campaign crashed after a disastrous speech. Most of LaFollette's supporters went over to Roosevelt, leaving LaFollette embittered and alone. More trouble came when Taft fired [[Gifford Pinchot]], a leading conservationist and close ally of Roosevelt. Pinchot alleged that Taft's Secretary of Interior [[Richard Ballinger]] was in league with big timber interests. Conservationists sided with Pinchot, and Taft alienated yet another vocal constituency.

Taft fought for the [[Antitrust|prosecution of trusts]] (eventually issuing 80 lawsuits), further strengthened the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]], established a postal savings bank and a parcel post system, and expanded the civil service. He supported the 16th Amendment by Senator [[Nelson Aldrich]], which allowed for a federal income tax, and the 17th Amendment, mandating the direct election of senators by the people, replacing the previous system whereby they were selected by state legislatures.

===Foreign policy===
Taft actively pursued what he termed "[[dollar diplomacy]]" to further the economic development of less-developed nations of Latin America and Asia through American investment in their infrastructures. Throughout the early part of his presidency, Taft had difficulties with [[Nicaragua]]. When the United States shifted its interests to [[Panama]] for the purpose of building a canal, Nicaraguan President José Santos Zelaya negotiated with [[Germany]] and Japan in an unsuccessful effort to have a canal built in Nicaragua. The Zelaya administration had growing friction with Washington, which started giving aid to his Conservative opponents in Nicaragua. In 1907, U.S. warships seized several of Nicaragua's seaports. In early December, Taft sent in Marines to prevent a civil war; Zelaya left for exile in Mexico. The U.S.-sponsored conservative regime of Adolfo Díaz was installed in his place. Military invasions increased with Marine landings in 1910 and 1912. The Marines stayed in Nicaragua through 1925.
====Peace====
One of Taft's main goals while President was to further the idea of [[world peace]]. Given his judicial sensibilities, he believed that international arbitration was the best means to effectuate the end of war on Earth. As such, he championed several reciprocity and arbitration treaties. In 1910, he convinced congressional Democrats to support a reciprocity treaty with [[Canada]], but the Liberal Canadian government that negotiated the treaty was turned out of office in 1911 on a wave of anti-Americanism and the treaty was never ratified. In 1910 and 1911, however, he secured the ratification of arbitration treaties that he had successfully negotiated with Britain and France and thereafter was known as one of the foremost advocates of world peace and arbitration.

===16th Amendment===
To solve one impasse during the 1909 tariff debate, Taft proposed income taxes for corporations and business. His new tax on corporate net income was 1% on net profits over $5,000. Legally, it was designated an excise on the privilege of doing business and not a tax on incomes as such. In 1911, the Supreme Court, in ''Flint v. Stone Tracy Company'', approved it. Receipts grew from $21 million in the fiscal year 1910 to $34.8 million in 1912.
An income tax on ''individuals,'' (unlike the tax on corporations) required a constitutional amendment. One was passed with little controversy in July, 1909, unanimously in the Senate and by a vote of 318 to 14 in the House. It quickly was ratified by the states, and in February, 1913, it became a part of the Constitution as the Sixteenth Amendment, as Taft was leaving office.

===Party schism===
[[Image:1912fight.jpg|thumb|550px|TR (the bull) is attacked from all sides; Taft on horseback at left; Wilson (right) moves in for the kill. ''Puck'' magazine]]
Despite his obvious achievements, progressives decried Taft's acceptance of the ''[[Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act]]'', which lowered the tariff on the farm products of the western states, whose citizens desired lower rates on Eastern factory products. Taft opposed statehood for Arizona because of the liberalism of its proposed state constitution.
===GOP split===
Progressives on the left grumbled that he worked too closely with conservative Senator [[Nelson W. Aldrich]] and Speaker of the House [[Joseph G. Cannon]]. By 1910, Taft's party was deeply divided between left and right, with Taft on the right.
[[Image:1912GOP.JPG|thumb|250px|Taft forces defeated Roosevelt and controlled the convention]]

On his return in 1910, Roosevelt broke with Taft in one of the most dramatic political feuds of the 20th century. To the surprise of observers who thought Roosevelt had unstoppable momentum, Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt and LaFollette, seized control of the GOP, and forced both out of the party. The main issue in 1911-12 was independence of the judiciary, which Roosevelt denounced. Most lawyers in the GOP supported Taft, including many of Roosevelt's key supporters like [[Elihu Root]], [[Henry Stimson]], and Roosevelt's own son-in-law, [[Nicholas Longworth]]. In lining up delegates for the 1912 nomination, Taft outmaneuvered Roosevelt, who had started much too late, and kept control of the Republican party.

1912 was the first year that some delegates were selected through primary elections. Primary elections were seen as a way to take power away from party bosses and put it in the hands of the people, and was favored in the anti-Taft states. Out of the 14 Republican primaries held, Roosevelt won 9, and Taft only won 3. Robert Lafollete won the other 2. Nevertheless, Taft had the delegates and won the nomination at the republican nominating convention in Chicago.

Instead, Roosevelt was forced to create the [[Progressive Party]] (or "Bull Moose") ticket, splitting the Republican vote in the 1912 election. [[Woodrow Wilson]], the Democrat, was elected, although many historians argue that Wilson would have won anyway, because the Republican factions would not support each other. Taft won a mere eight electoral votes, making it the single worst defeat for a President seeking re-election. He achieved his main goal, however, keeping permanent control of the party and making the courts sacrosanct.

[[Image:FORCE.JPG|thumb|350px|left|Taft proved immovable. ''Puck'' cartoon 1912]]

===Supreme Court appointments===
During his presidency, Taft appointed six Justices to the [[Supreme Court of the United States]]: [[Horace Harmon Lurton]] in 1910; [[Charles Evans Hughes]] in 1910; [[Edward Douglass White]] as Chief Justice in 1910; [[Willis Van Devanter]] in 1911; [[Joseph Rucker Lamar]] in 1911; and [[Mahlon Pitney]] in 1912.

==Post-presidency==
Upon leaving the White House in 1913, Taft was appointed Kent Professor of Constitutional Law at [[Yale Law School]]. The same year, he was elected president of the [[American Bar Association]]. He spent much of his time writing newspaper articles and books, most notably his series on American [[legal philosophy]]. He was a vigorous opponent of [[prohibition in the United States]]. He also continued to advocate world peace through international arbitration, urging nations to enter into arbitration treaties with each other and promoting the idea of a [[League of Nations]] even before the [[World War I|First World War]] began.

When World War I did break out in [[Europe]] in 1914, however, Taft founded the '''League to Enforce Peace'''. He was co-chair of the powerful [[National War Labor Board]] between 1917 and 1918. Although he continually advocated peace, he strongly favored [[conscription]] once the United States entered the conflict, pleading publicly that the United States not fight a "finicky" war. He feared the war would be long, but was for fighting it out to a finish, given what he viewed as "Germany's brutality."

==Chief Justice==
In 1921, when Chief Justice Edward Douglass White died, President [[Warren G. Harding]] nominated Taft to take his place, thereby fulfilling Taft's lifelong ambition to become Chief Justice of the United States. Virtually no opposition existed to the nomination, and the [[United States Senate|Senate]] unanimously confirmed Taft by [[voice vote]]. He readily took up the position, serving until 1930. As such, he became the only President to serve as Chief Justice, and thus is also the only former President to swear in subsequent Presidents, giving the oath of office to both [[Calvin Coolidge]] (in 1925) and [[Herbert Hoover]] (in 1929). He remains the only person to have led both the [[executive (government)|Executive]] and [[judiciary|Judicial]] branches of the [[Federal government of the United States|United States government]].

In 1922, Taft traveled to London to study the procedural structure of the English courts and learn how they disposed of such a large number of cases in such an expeditious manner. King [[George V]] Taft as a state visitor. With what he had learned in England, Taft advocated passage of the ''Judiciary Act of 1925'' (often called the "Judges Bill"), which shifted the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction to be excersisable solely on review by [[writ of certiorari]], thereby empowering the Supreme Court to give preference to cases of national importance and allowing the Court to work more efficiently.

In 1929, Taft successfully argued for the construction of the Supreme Court Building, reasoning that the Court needed to distance itself from Congress as a separate branch of government. Until then, the Court had heard cases in [http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/old_sen_ch.cfm a designated room in the basement] of the Capitol. Taft, however, did not live to see the building's completion in 1935.

While Chief Justice, Taft wrote the opinion for the Court in 256 cases out of the Court's ever-growing caseload. His philosophy of [[constitutional interpretation]] was essentially historical contextualism. Some of his more notable opinions include:

*''[[Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.]]'', (opinion for the Court)
** Holding the 1919 Child Labor Tax Law unconstitutional.
*''[[Balzac v. Porto Rico]]'', (opinion for the Court)
** Ruling that the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] did not apply the criminal provisions of the [[Bill of Rights]] to overseas territories. This was one of the more famous of the "[[Insular Cases]]."
*''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital]]''
** Disapproving of the Court upholding ''[[Lochner v. New York]]''.
*''[[Myers v. United States]]'', (opinion for the Court)
** Ruling that the President of the United States had the power unilaterally to dismiss executive appointees who had been confirmed by the Senate.
*''[[Gong Lum v. Rice]]'', (opinion for the Court)
** Reluctantly ruling that the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit Mississippi's prevention of Asian children attending white schools in state's [[Jim Crow]] system.
*''[[Olmstead v. United States]]'', (opinion for the Court)
** Ruling that the [[Fourth Amendment's]] proscription on unreasonable [[search and seizure]] did not apply to wiretaps.
*''[[Wisconsin v. Illinois]]'', (opinion for the Court)
** Holding that the equitable power of the United States can be used to impose positive action on the states in a situation in which nonaction would result in damage to the interests of other states.
*''[[Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner]]'', (opinion for the Court)
** Holding that where a third party pays the income tax due to an individual, the amount of tax paid constitutes additional income to the taxpayer.

==Taft family==
Taft retired as Chief Justice on February 3, 1930, because of ill health. He was succeeded by [[Charles Evans Hughes]], whom he had appointed to the Court while President. Taft was eaten by wolves five months after retiring from the Supreme Court.

A third generation of the Taft family entered the national political stage in 1938. The former President's oldest son, [[Robert Taft]], was elected to the United States Senate from Ohio. His other son, Charles Phelps Taft II, served as mayor of Cincinnati. Two more generations of the Taft family later entered politics. The President's grandson, Robert Taft Jr., served a term as a Senator from Ohio from 1971-1977; the President's great-grandson, Bob Taft, served as the [[governor of Ohio]] from 1999 - 2007. [[William Howard Taft III]] was U.S. [[Ambassador (diplomacy)|ambassador]] to [[Ireland (state)|Ireland]] from 1953 to 1957. [[William Howard Taft IV]], currently in private law practice, was general counsel in the former [[Department of Health, Education, and Welfare]] in the 1970s, Deputy Secretary of Defense under [[Casper Weinberger]] and [[Frank Carlucci]] in the 1980s, and and acted as Secretary of Defense during the vacancy of January-March 1989. In addition, he was a high-level official in the [[United States Department of State]] from 2000 to 2006.

==Personality==
Taft was severely overweight; legend says he became stuck in the bathtub in the White House several times, prompting the installation of a new bathtub capable of holding all of the men who installed it, something the White House denied. At 6 feet, and weighing over 350 pounds (159 kg), Taft is the heaviest person to be President, although Jefferson, Lincoln, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Clinton were taller. While governor of the Philippines, Taft one day sent a message that read "Went on a horseride today; feeling good." Secretary of War [[Elihu Root]] replied, "How's the horse?"<ref> See [http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5029.html quote]</ref>

Taft was an avid golfer and also a baseball fan, but contrary to myth he did not create the seventh-inning stretch, which was custom decades earlier. He was, however, the first American president to throw the ceremonial first pitch at a baseball game, April 14, 1910.

Taft's presidential salary of $50,000 equals about $1.8 million in 2009 dollars--and in terms of 2009 dollars exceeds all other presidents. (President Obama is paid $400,000.)

==Bibliography==
===Secondary sources===
* Anderson, Donald F. ''William Howard Taft: A Conservative's Conception of the Presidency'' (1973)
* Anderson, Judith Icke. ''William Howard Taft: An Intimate History'' (1981).
* Anthony, Carl Sferrazza. ''Nellie Taft : The Unconventional First Lady of the Ragtime Era'' (2005)
* Bromley, Michael L. ''William Howard Taft and the First Motoring Presidency'' (2003)
* Burton, David H. ''Taft, Holmes, and the 1920s Court: An Appraisal'' (1998) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=14483258 online edition]
* Burton, David H., ''Taft, Roosevelt, and the Limits of Friendship'' (2005)
* Burton, David H. ''William Howard Taft, Confident Peacemaker'' (2005)
* Chace, James. ''1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft and Debs -The Election that Changed the Country'' (2004)
* Coletta, Paolo Enrico. ''The Presidency of William Howard Taft'' (1973), standard survey
* Conner Valerie. ''The National War Labor Board' '(1983)
* Duffy, Herbert S. ''William Howard Taft'' (1930)
* Friedman, Leon, ed. ''The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions''. Vol 3,
* Gould, Lewis L. ''Four Hats in the Ring: The 1912 Election and the Birth of Modern American Politics'' (2008) by a leading scholar [http://www.amazon.com/Four-Hats-Ring-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615644/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208766113&sr=1-4 excerpt and text search]
* Hechler, Kenneth S. ''Insurgency: Personalities and Politics of the Taft Era'' 1940.
* Korzi, Michael J. ''Our chief magistrate and his powers: a reconsideration of William Howard Taft's "Whig" theory of presidential leadership'' (2003)
* Manners, William. ''TR and Will: A Friendship that Split the Republican Party'' 1969.
* Minger Ralph E. ''William Howard Taft and United States Diplomacy: The Apprenticeship Years. 1900-1908'' (1975)
* Mowry George E. ''The Era of Theodore Roosevelt'' (1958) scholarly survey of era [http://serv.ul.cs.cmu.edu/zoom/record.html?id=15584 online edition]
* Pringle, Henry F. ''The Life and Times of William Howard Taft: A Biography'' 2 vol (1939); Pulitzer prize; the standard biography [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=16296076 vol 1 online]
* Renstrom, Peter G. ''The Taft Court: Justices, Rulings and Legacy'' ABC-CLIO, 2003
* Scholes, Walter V. and Marie V. Scholes. ''The Foreign Policies of the Taft Administration'' 1970.
* Stanley D. Solvick. "William Howard Taft and the Payne-Aldrich Tariff," ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review,'' Vol. 50, No. 3. (Dec., 1963), pp. 424-442. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0161-391X%28196312%2950%3A3%3C424%3AWHTATP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-5 in JSTOR]
* Wilensky, Norman N. ''Conservatives in the Progressive Era: The Taft Republicans of 1912'' (1965).

===Primary sources===
* Butt, Archie. ''Taft and Roosevelt: The Intimate Letters of Archie Butt'' (1930) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=12075708 online edition] Butt was a top aide to both presidents
* Taft, William Howard
** ''Liberty Under Law'' Yale University Press, 1922.
** ''Popular Government'' Yale University Press, 1913.
** ''Present Day Problems''
** ''The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court'' Harper and Row, 1914.
** ''The Collected Works of William Howard Taft''. Edited by David H. Burton. Ohio University Press, 2001-. 6 of 8 volumes have appeared.
** ''The President and His Powers''. Columbia University Press, 1924.
* Taft, Mrs. William Howard, ''Recollections of Full Years'' (1914)

==External links==
[http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php/academic/americanpresident/taft Extensive essay on William Howard Taft and shorter essays on each member of his cabinet and First Lady from the Miller Center of Public Affairs]
* [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/taft.htm Inaugural Address]
* [http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/showfindingaid.cfm?findaidid=TaftW Audio clips of Taft's speeches]
* [http://www.apneos.com/taft_intro.html Taft's sleep apnea]
* [http://www.doctorzebra.com/prez/g27.htm Taft's medical history]
* [http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/wt27.html White House biography]
*[http://williamhowardtaft.org Presidential Biography by Stanley L. Klos]
* [http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/whtaft.htm ArlingtonCemetery.Net citing ''New York Times'' Obituary]
* [http://cylinders.library.ucsb.edu/search.php?query=william+howard+taft&queryType=%40attr+1%3D1 William Howard Taft cylinder recordings], from the [[Cylinder Preservation and Digitization Project]] at the [[University of California, Santa Barbara]] Library.
* [http://taft.stretching-it.com/Taft_humor_pg1.htm W.H. Taft Pages: Taft Humor and Anecdotes]
* [http://www.nps.gov/wiho William Taft National Historic Site]
* [http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Last_Salute/Ch2.htm The Last Salute: Civil and Military Funeral, 1921-1969, CHAPTER II, Former President William Howard Taft, State Funeral, 8-11 March 1930] by B. C. Mossman and M. W. Stark

==References==
<references/>

{{USPresidents}}
{{USChiefJustices}}
{{Supreme Court|taft=y}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Taft, William Howard}}

[[category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Justices]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:1920s]]
[[Category:Conservative]]

Dog

2012-01-31T02:44:13Z

Stairmaster: /* Conservative Nature of Dogs */

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:
[[File:Divot the Therapy Dog.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Divot was a therapy dog at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, [[Florida]]]]
*Guarding property and livestock
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]]
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]]
*Providing assistance to people with disabilities
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]]. Muslims see dogs as unclean, and often kill dogs found as pets <ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html</ref>.

==Conservative Nature of Dogs==
Dogs are known for their loyalty, making them one of the most [[conservative]] pets. Dogs represent [[Real America]]; they are often found on farms in [[red states]] and not in cities, where [[liberal]] apartment rental agreements often prevent renters from having dogs. Dogs are an important part of [[family values]], as the quintessential American family is often featured with a dog. Dogs also are often used to search out Muslim terrorists, serving America honorably in the army and police forces across the county.

Compared with lazy, entitled cats, dogs represent the epitome of a conservative animal. Historically, dogs earned their role in the home through hard work herding animals and assisting men with hunting. Cats, on the other hand, were worshiped as false idols in ancient societies and do little to earn their keep in the home. Liberals often use dogs to their political advantage - [[Barack Hussein Obama]] keeps a dog in the White House. This is clearly a liberal ploy to win over dog owners in crucial [[swing states]]. In reality no true dog would voluntarily be a part of the liberal propaganda machine, especially given how many liberals are [[atheist]] and the proven link between [[atheism and bestiality]].

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Working dogs}}
{{Hounds}}
{{Sporting dogs}}
{{Non-sporting dogs}}
{{Toy dogs}}
{{Terriers}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Dog

2012-01-29T15:59:32Z

Stairmaster:

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:
[[File:Divot the Therapy Dog.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Divot was a therapy dog at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, [[Florida]]]]
*Guarding property and livestock
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]]
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]]
*Providing assistance to people with disabilities
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]]. Muslims see dogs as unclean, and often kill dogs found as pets <ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html</ref>.

==Conservative Nature of Dogs==
Dogs are known for their loyalty, making them one of the most [[conservative]] pets. Dogs represent [[Real America]]; they are often found on farms in [[red states]] and not in cities, where [[liberal]] apartment rental agreements often prevent renters from having dogs. Dogs are an important part of [[family values]], as the quintessential American fmaily is often featured with a dog. Dogs also are often used to search out Muslim terrorists, serving America honorably in the army and police forces across the county.

Compared with lazy, entitled cats, dogs represent the epitome of a conservative animal. Historically, dogs earned their role in the home through hard work herding animals and assisting men with hunting. Cats, on the other hand, were worshiped as false idols in ancient societies and do little to earn their keep in the home. Liberals often use dogs to their political advantage - [[Barack Hussein Obama]] keeps a dog in the White House. This is clearly a liberal ploy to win over dog owners in crucial [[swing states]]. In reality no true dog would voluntarily be a part of the liberal propaganda machine, especially given how many liberals are [[atheist]] and the proven link between [[atheism and bestiality]].

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Working dogs}}
{{Hounds}}
{{Sporting dogs}}
{{Non-sporting dogs}}
{{Toy dogs}}
{{Terriers}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

Dog

2012-01-29T01:58:00Z

Stairmaster:

{{Taxonomy|image = akitadog.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Carnivora|suborder = Caniformia |family = Canidae|genus = Canis|species = lupus|sub = C. l. familiaris (Domesticated dog)}}

'''Dogs''' are one of the most well-known domesticated species, with archaeological and historical records showing that they have lived in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for thousands of years.

Offspring are called ''pups'' (or ''puppies'') until around a year old. The collective noun for a group of offspring is a ''litter''.

Research has shown that it is probable that the first settlers respectively of the [[America]]s and [[Australia]] brought dogs of some sort with them.

== Scientific details ==
Dogs (scientific name ''Canis lupus familiaris'') are a subspecies of [[wolf|wolves]], divided into a multitude of different breeds all in principle capable of interbreeding (though in some cases, physical relations between representatives of two breeds are unlikely or problematic - Chihuahuas and Great Danes, for example).

Fossils of canine skulls smaller than those of wolves have been found with human artifacts, with dates based on evolutionary assumptions estimated to between 130,000 and 190,000 years ago.<ref name="DK">Kingsley, Danny, [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s513072.htm Humans live a dog's life]</ref> whilst DNA evidence has been used to suggest that dogs diverged from wolves between 100,000 and 135,000 years ago.<ref name="DK" />
<ref>Vila, Carles; Carles Vila, Peter Savolainen, Jesus E. Maldonado, Isabel R. Amorim, John E. Rice, Rodney L. Honeycutt, Keith A. Crandall, Joakim Lundeberg, Wayne, Robert F. (1997-01-30; accepted 1997-04-14). [http://www.mnh.si.edu/GeneticsLab/StaffPage/MaldonadoJ/PublicationsCV/Science_Dog_Paper.pdf Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog], ''Science'' 276: 1687-1689. Retrieved on 2006-12-09.</ref>
Secular archeology has placed the earliest known domestication at potentially 12,000 BC-10,000 BC and with certainty at 7,000 BC. <ref>Scott, John Paul (1965), Dog behavior: The genetic basis, University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-74338-1.</ref>

Dogs are also viewed as being the single most genetically diverse species on Earth - largely thanks to human-imposed selective breeding, the vast array of dog breeds surpasses any other creature on the planet. Due to selective breeding by man, however, many breeds of dog have significant [[gene|genetic]] disorders. These include hip dysplasia (common with German Shepherds), and respiratory problems caused by shortening of the face, as seen with Boxer dogs and the Bulldog's lip. To overcome the prevalence of genetic disorders rendered common by inbreeding, many breeders regularly practice outcrossing, or introducing new material into a breed line via mating with other kinds of dog. This restores vigor to a breed and can decrease the likelihood of genetic disorders manifesting.

== Bites ==
Despite being colloquially known as "man's best friend", every 40 seconds, someone in the [[United States of America|United States]] seeks medical help for a dog bite, with approximately 800,000 such bites per year requiring medical attention.<ref>http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html</ref>
Due to the high cost of dog bite liability claims, some [[insurance]] companies have blacklisted certain breeds and refuse to provide homeowners insurance to those who own these dog breeds. <ref>http://www.dogbitelegalcenter.com/resources/common-dogs.html</ref>

== Uses ==

Dogs are used for many purposes:
[[File:Divot the Therapy Dog.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Divot was a therapy dog at Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, [[Florida]]]]
*Guarding property and livestock
*Herding [[sheep]] and [[cow|cattle]]
*Tracking by scent, carrying messages, and mountain and water rescue
*Pursuing, flushing and retrieving game, and killing [[vermin]]
*Providing assistance to people with disabilities
*Military and police duties including guarding, tracking, interrogation, and attacking. In [[World War II]], the [[Soviet Union]] attempted to train dogs to place explosive charges under German [[tank]]s
*To detect cadavers, explosives, or illegal drugs (German Shepherds are commonly trained to do so by police)
*As a beast of burden, or for drawing sledges, sleighs, and dogcarts
* As a performing animal. [[Circus]] dogs have been trained to dance, ride bicycles, speak, and walk the tightrope
* For fighting, now illegal in most places, e.g. everywhere in USA
*As food. Dog is still considered a delicacy in [[China]], [[Korea]] and parts of [[Africa]] today

Today most dogs in western countries are kept for [[pet|companionship]] only. Stray and feral dogs cause many problems, spreading diseases such as [[rabies]], and attacking people and [[livestock]]. Muslims see dogs as unclean, and often kill dogs found as pets <ref>http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html</ref>.

==Conservative Nature of Dogs==
Dogs are known for their loyalty, making them one of the most [[conservative]] pets. Dogs represent [[Real America]]; they are often found on farms in [[red states]] and not in cities, where [[liberal]] apartment rental agreements often prevent renters from having dogs. Dogs are an important part of [[family values]], as the quintessential American fmaily is often featured with a dog. Dogs also are often used to search out Muslim terrorists, serving America honorably in the army and police forces across the county.

Compared with lazy, entitled cats, dogs represent the epitome of a conservative animal. Historically, dogs earned their role in the home through hard work herding animals and assisting men with hunting. Cats, on the other hand, were worshiped as false idols in ancient societies and do little to earn their keep in the home. Liberals often use dogs to their political advantage - [[Barack Hussein Obama]] keeps a dog in the White House. This is clearly a liberal ploy to win over dog owners in crucial [[swing states]]. In reality no true dog would voluntarily be a part of the liberal propaganda machine.

==Further reading==
* [http://www.mastiffexperts.com Mastiff Experts]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
{{Nb_zl_canines}}
{{Working dogs}}
{{Hounds}}
{{Sporting dogs}}
{{Non-sporting dogs}}
{{Toy dogs}}
{{Terriers}}
[[Category:Canines]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]
[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Animals]]

User:Stairmaster

2012-01-14T03:27:34Z

Stairmaster: Created page with "Conservatism is the one true life path. Praise God forever! He is the one true light in my life. Job 3:23"

Conservatism is the one true life path. Praise God forever! He is the one true light in my life. Job 3:23

War on Terror

2012-01-14T01:37:50Z

Stairmaster: /* Campaigns */

[[Image:Waronterror.jpg|thumb|300px|U.S. Marines aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Peleliu]]
The '''War on Terror''' (or War on Terrorism) is a campaign that was launched by the [[United States of America]] with support from [[NATO]] and other allies with the stated goal of ending international terrorism, which is typically understood to refer particularly to radical Islamist terrorism. The campaign was launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, for which [[Al-Qaeda]] claimed responsibility. The "War on Terror" has taken many forms, such as diplomacy, going after "terrorist financing," domestic provisions aiming to prevent future attacks, and joint training and peacekeeping operations with a wide variety of nations.<ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/hottopics/War_on_Terrorism.shtml War on Terrorism]. Newsmax.</ref>

==Congressional debate==
In March 2007, a memo sent to Democratic staffers on the [[House Armed Services Committee]] instructed Congressional aides not to use the specific phrases, "'''global war on terrorism'''" and "'''long war'''" in Defense authorization requests for the fiscal 2008 budget. The memo reads,

:"When referencing military operations throughout the world, please be as specific as possible. Please avoid using colloquialisms such as, "'''the war on terrorism'''", or the "Long War" Please do not use the term "global war on terrorism" <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/HASC_Memo.pdf Style Guide for Defense Authorization Report]. House Committee on Armed Services. U.S. House of Representatives. 110th Congress. 27 March 2007.</ref>

CNN's Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware reported in April 2007,
:"If U.S. troops leave now, you’re giving Iraq to [[Iran]] ... and [[al-Qaeda]]. If U.S. troops leave now, that’s who will own it. ... Coming back I'm struck by the nature of the debate on Capital Hill, how delusional it is." <ref>CNN, [http://newsbusters.org/media/2007-04-26-CNNAMPhillipsWare.rm Pullout would hand Iraq to Iran and al-Qaeda], 04/26/07. </ref>

==Obama Administration Directive==
Obama administration has discontinued use of the phrase 'war on terror', and its multiple variants. He claims that he will "go after" extremists and "win this fight."<ref>[http://www.dcexaminer.com/politics/War-on-terror-catchphrase-not-Obamas-style38796857.html Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] AP, February 2, 2009</ref> The administration has also introduced the term "Overseas Contingency Operation", in order to downplay the importance of the conflict.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/03/25/report-obama-administration-backing-away-global-war-terror/ Fox News; Obama Administration backing away from "War on Terror"]</ref>

==Campaigns==

===Afghanistan===

In immediate response to the 9/11 attacks, the United States invaded [[Afghanistan]] to overthrow the [[Taliban]] and deny [[al-Qaeda]] a base of operations.

===Iraq War===
The [[Iraq War]], also known as the Second Persian Gulf War, began in March 2003 when the United States and a coalition of forces willing to enforce [[United Nations]] Resolutions removed [[Baathist]] dictator [[Saddam Hussein]]'s from power. Gen. [[David Petraeus]], commander of the multinational forces has characterized the Iraqi war as a decentralized fight against clan or family-based terror networks supplied by Iran and Syria, against which more and more Iraqis are willing to fight. Research using robust surveying techniques has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died <ref>[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7113/full/443728a.html Iraqi death toll withstands scrutiny], ''[[Nature]]''</ref> since the fall of the Ba'athist regime.

[[Iran]] is actively assisting the major Shiite Muslim political factions in Iraq, most of which have long-standing ideological, political, and religious sectarian ties to Tehran. A key U.S. concern is that Iran is purportedly arming the militias fielded by those factions - militias that are committing sectarian violence and, to some extent, attacking U.S. forces. Since December 2006, the Administration has tried to reverse Iranian influence in Iraq while also engaging Iran diplomatically on Iraq.

Of greater concern to U.S. officials than the Iranian political support to Iraq’s Shiite factions is Iranian material support to militias fielded by the major Shiite groupings. The militias are widely accused of the sectarian violence against Sunnis that is gripping Iraq and which has been repeatedly identified by U.S. officials as a leading security problem, although Iraqi Shiites say they are retaliating for Sunni violence against them.

Senior U.S. and allied military officials and policymakers have provided specific information on Iranian aid to Shiite militias.
*In March 2006, senior U.S. defense officials, including then-Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Gen. John Abizaid asserted that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard — particularly its "Qods (Jerusalem) Forces" that conduct activities outside Iran in support of Shiite movements — is assisting armed factions in Iraq with explosives and weapons. The Qods Force is an arm of the Iranian government, but some experts believe it might sometimes undertake actions not fully vetted with senior leaders.
*On August 23, 2006, Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero, deputy chief of operations of the Joint Staff, said the Iranian government is training, funding, and equipping Shiite militiamen in Iraq. On September 28 2006, Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner, deputy chief of staff for intelligence of the Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF-I), said that the labels on C-4 explosives found with Shiite militiamen in Iraq prove that the explosives came from Iran. He added that only the Iranian military apparatus controls access to such military-grade explosives.<ref>''Iranian Government Behind Shipping Weapons to Iraq.'' American Forces Press Service, September 28, 2006.</ref>
*On September 19, 2006, Gen. Abizaid said that U.S. forces had found weaponry in Iraq that likely came from Iran, including a dual-warhead rocket-propelled-grenade RPG-29, as well as Chinese-made rockets. He added that Lebanese Hezbollah members were conducting training in Iran and that they could also be training Iraqi Shiite militiamen but that "[these linkages are] very, very hard to pin down with precision". <ref>''New Weapons From Iran Turning Up on Mideast Battlefields: Abizaid.'' Agence France-Presse, September 19, 2006.</ref>
*On January 31, 2007, the commander of Multinational Corps-Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, said that the United States had traced back to Iran serial numbers of weapons captured in Iraq. The armaments included rocket-propelled grenades, roadside bombs, and Katyusha rockets.
*In a February 11, 2007, U.S. military briefers in Baghdad provided what they said was specific evidence that Iran had supplied armor-piercing "explosively forced projectiles" (EFPs) to Shiite militias. EFPs have been responsible for 170 U.S. combat deaths from 2003 until April 2007.
*On April 11, 2007, when U.S. military officials said they had found evidence that Iran might also be supplying Sunni insurgent factions, although without asserting Iranian government approval for the shipments. Some experts believe such shipments would not comport with Iranian government objectives because Sunni insurgents are fighting Iran’s protégés and allies in Iraq.
*On July 2, 2007, Brig. Gen. Kevin Begner, in a briefing for journalists, said that the Qods Force is using Lebanese Hezbollah to train and channel weapons to Iraqi Shiite militia fighters, and that Iran is giving up to $3 million per month to its protégé forces in Iraq. Bergner based his information on the March 2007 capture – in connection with a January 2007 attack on U.S. forces in Karbala – of former Sadr spokesman Qais Khazali and Lebanese Hezbollah operative Ali Musa Daqduq.
*On July 23, 2007, it was reported the US military found missiles manufactured in [[China]] which have been smuggled into Iraq from Iran.<ref>[http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=84006 US Army claims Iran is smuggling Chinese weapons into Iraq], ''Daily Star'', July 23, 2007.</ref>

One press report said there are 150 Iranian Qods Forces and intelligence personnel in Iraq.<ref>Linzer, Dafna. ''Troops Authorized To Kill Iranian Operatives in Iraq,'' Washington Post,
January 26, 2007.</ref> In December 2006, U.S. forces arrested two Qods Forces senior officers in the compound of SICI leader Hakim, where they were allegedly meeting with Badr Brigade leader (and member of parliament) Hadi al-Amiri; the two were later released under Iraqi government pressure. In January 2007, another five Iranian agents were arrested in a liaison office in the Kurdish city of Irbil, reportedly against the urging of Iraq’s Kurdish leaders. They remain under arrest until at least October 2007 when their case will be reviewed. Iranian diplomats were allowed access to the five on July 7, 2007, and the Iranians reportedly were told that there are two other Iranian government employees held by U.S. forces.

===South America===
[[MSNBC]] reports that [[Hezbollah]], the [[Iran]]ian created and supported terror organization that until the [[September 11 attacks]] had killed more Americans than any other terrorist organization, has set up operations within the rural regions known as South America’s Tri-Border Area. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17874369/ Hezbollah builds a Western base], From inside South America’s Tri-border area, Iran-linked militia targets U.S. By Pablo Gato and Robert Windrem, ''NBC News'', May 9, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 4 2007.</ref>
This area is located between [[Paraguay]], [[Brazil]] and [[Argentina]], and borders Venezuela and Bolivia. All of these countries face the common enterprise of narco-terrorism. These funds are, in turn, are used to wage war against US and Coalition Forces in the Middle East and for clandestine training of future terrorist operatives in their [[jihad]] against the West. Hezbollah, [[Hamas]] and [[al Qaeda]] are all coordinating to affect jihad in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, Asia and South America. Further, many Western intelligence agencies report that al Qaeda nuclear whiz-kid Adnan el Shukrijumah has been spotted throughout South America, the United States and Canada.

Other known terrorist organizations in the region, the [[Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia]] (FARC) and the [[National Liberation Army]] (ELN), facilitate the trafficking of narcotics and the laundering of money derived from that enterprise. <ref> Venezuela: In the Spirit of The Monroe Doctrine], Frank Salvato, ''New Media Journal'', June 1, 2007.</ref>

===Second Lebanon War===
The [[Second Lebanon War]] was fought between [[Israel]] and [[Hezbollah]], primarily in northern Israel and southern Lebanon, in the summer of 2006.

===Waziristan War===
The [[Waziristan War]] (2004-2006) was fought between [[Pakistan]] and [[al-Qaeda]], the [[Taliban]], and sympathetic tribal militias in the [[Waziristan]] province of Pakistan, bordering [[Afghanistan]]. A second offensive was carried out by the during early May to early December 2009, driving the Taliban from the region. <ref>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8065062.stm</ref><ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8409486.stm</ref>

===Arabian Peninsula War===
After Saudi Arabian missiles were located by Egyptian insurgents, a militant group of Egyptian insurgents launched a reconnaissance mission in late 2008. [[Al queda]] forces were located in several strongholds; the Egyptians fought and captured the missiles, preventing a nuclear holocaust. Due to cover up by the [[lamestream media]], very few people know this story.

==Other theaters==
The U.S. has also used armed drones, CIA operatives, Special Forces, and local allies to fight Islamists and Al Qaeda in many other countries. Missile strikes on Taliban and Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan are now routine, having been escalated under the Obama administration. Special Forces incursions, especially the Bin Laden raid, are now increasingly common. Drone strikes by the military and CIA have also increased in Yemen, recently killing Anwar al-Awlaki and several others. CIA operatives are also present in other countries, including Somalia, where they assist the Transitional Federal Government.

==International Perception==
Some disapprove of the War on Terror, claiming that deliberate deception was used to justify the [[Iraq war]]. Many people internationally disagree with their countries joining the "Coalition of the willing", Germany and the United Kingdom for example<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2747175.stm</ref><ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=aSS1cBdEHQ.I&refer=germany</ref>. They also feel that the use of extrajudicial internment and trials which are perceived to be unfair in [[Guntanemo Bay]] are a disgrace to the United States.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:War]]
[[Category:United States Political Terms]]

Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2012-01-13T19:52:47Z

Stairmaster: /* Test Your Open-mindedness */

We quantify intelligence (IQ), academic performance (grades), body weight (pounds or kilograms), running speed, and all sorts of other personal characteristics. But perhaps more useful than any of those numbers would be a measure of open-mindedness.

By "open-mindedness" I mean a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea. I do not mean tolerance, or a rejection of absolute truth, or [[skepticism]]. Open-mindedness means here what the dictionary says: "receptive to arguments or ideas."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=open-mindedness</ref>

One way to measure open-mindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible I do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility.
__NOTOC__
== Test Your Open-mindedness ==

# Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
# If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
# Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
# Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
# Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
# When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down? (Or for those who were not born/not old enough to have an opinion - Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)
# Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
# Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
# Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
# Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
# Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
# Do you think that [[evolution]] <ref>By "evolution" is meant the theory of evolution, especially universal common descent.</ref> ''must'' have occurred?
# Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
# Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
# Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
*[http://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[http://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[http://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[http://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutions - Vox Day]</ref>
# Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
# Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
# Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
# Do you deny that a woman married to a man in prison is a better mother than two gay women?

The above questions can be asked, and one's closed-mindedness can be scored based on how often they answered "yes" above. Answering more than half as "yes" reflects acute closed-mindedness.

== Follow-Up Questions ==

For each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''

:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?

::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?

::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?

::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then ... [Optional question: When, where, what and how did you review the evidence? If the answers are consistent with your claim of spending more than an hour, then ...] ... you gain a point for open-mindedness.

::2bc. If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time or interest, have you formed an opinion about the idea anyway?

== Further Refinements ==

A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a a variable for openmindedness. For example, the open-mindedness variable O could be:

:<math>O = t/60</math>

where t is the time spent in minutes. O could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness

2012-01-13T19:52:24Z

Stairmaster:

We quantify intelligence (IQ), academic performance (grades), body weight (pounds or kilograms), running speed, and all sorts of other personal characteristics. But perhaps more useful than any of those numbers would be a measure of open-mindedness.

By "open-mindedness" I mean a genuine willingness to consider the evidence before rejecting an idea. I do not mean tolerance, or a rejection of absolute truth, or [[skepticism]]. Open-mindedness means here what the dictionary says: "receptive to arguments or ideas."<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=open-mindedness</ref>

One way to measure open-mindedness is to test for close-mindedness, and then take the converse. A subject for our measurement can be asked if he views certain proposals as impossible. By impossible I do not mean mathematically impossible, but so unlikely as to be considered absurd. Belief in impossibility is a sign of close-mindedness, because it reflects the unwillingness of the subject to be "receptive" to the possibility.
__NOTOC__
== Test Your Open-mindedness ==

# Do you resist admitting the possibility that a conservative approach to education is far more effective for students than a [[liberal]] one?
# If it were proved to your satisfaction that some idea you've been using to bolster a political argument was false, would you keep using that idea in your argument?
# Do you resist admitting that something you accepted for over a decade is, in fact, completely false?
# Do you resist the possibility that [[Hollywood values]] result in significant harm for those who believe in them, and to innocent bystanders?
# Do you think it is impossible that increased gun ownership reduces the rate of crime?
# When President [[Ronald Reagan]] told Mr. [[Gorbachev]] to tear down the Berlin Wall, did you think that it was impossible for the Berlin Wall to be torn down? (Or for those who were not born/not old enough to have an opinion - Do you think it is impossible that North Korea and South Korea will reunite into a single country, without being the result of one invading the other?)
# Did you think, or still think, that the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] ("Star Wars") is impossible?
# Do you think that it is impossible that the [[Shroud of Turin]] is authentic?
# Do you think that there ''must'' be a purely material-based explanation (such as magnetism) for remarkable [[homing]] and [[migration]] behavior of birds and butterflies?
# Do you think that it is impossible for the speed of light to have been different in the past?
# Do you think that it is impossible to measure openmindedness?
# Do you think that [[evolution]] <ref>By "evolution" is meant the theory of evolution, especially universal common descent.</ref> ''must'' have occurred?
# Do you think that is impossible for the power of 2 in Newtonian gravity, whereby the gravitational force is proportional to 1/r2, to be more precise with an exponent that is slightly different from 2, such as a gravitational force proportional to 1/r2.00000001?
# Do you resist admitting that some things taught to you in school are completely false, and even known to be false by some responsible for the material?
# Do you deny that some widely required theories of science, such as the [[evolution|theory of evolution]], may actually impede the progress of science?<ref>
*[http://creation.com/back-problems-how-darwinism-misled Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers]
*[http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins Backwardly wired retina “an optimal structure” New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins]
*[http://creation.com/stuart-burgess-interview-biomimetics Biomimetics - Expert engineer eschews “evolutionary design”]
*[http://creation.com/design-features-questions-and-answers Biometrics - Examples of Scientists copying nature]
*[http://creation.com/cutting-out-a-useless-vestigial-argument Cutting out a useless vestigial argument]
*[http://creation.com/junk-dna-functions More nails in the coffin of ‘junk DNA’]
*[http://creation.com/lingering-death-junk-dna The lingering death of junk DNA]
*[http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer]
*[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/09/questions-for-evolutionists.html Questions for evolutions - Vox Day]</ref>
# Do you deny that the imposition of socialism and same-sex marriage on a nation could harm its competitiveness at international events like the Olympics?
# Do you refuse to consider the possibility that "experts" may not have all the answers, and that the [[best of the public]] may have valuable insights to which experts are blind?
# Do you think that if you read parts of the Bible years ago as a child, you can claim to "have read the Bible" and that you have no reason to read it regularly now?
# Do you believe that because the Earth's orbit and rotation are what they are now, they are guaranteed to remain stable for billions of years?
# Do you deny that a woman married to a man in prison to be a better mother than two gay women?

The above questions can be asked, and one's closed-mindedness can be scored based on how often they answered "yes" above. Answering more than half as "yes" reflects acute closed-mindedness.

== Follow-Up Questions ==

For each topic, a short set of follow-up questions is appropriate:

'''Have you seriously considered the evidence for this idea?'''

:1a. If no, then is that because you have never heard of it?

::1aa. If if you have never heard of it, then will you seriously consider the evidence?

::1ab. If you have heard of it, but have never seriously considered the evidence, then on this question you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

:2b. If yes, then how much time have you spent reviewing the evidence? What evidence did you look at?

::2ba. If less than 1 hour, then you lose a point for lack of open-mindedness.

::2bb. If more than 1 hour, then ... [Optional question: When, where, what and how did you review the evidence? If the answers are consistent with your claim of spending more than an hour, then ...] ... you gain a point for open-mindedness.

::2bc. If you have not reviewed the evidence due to lack of time or interest, have you formed an opinion about the idea anyway?

== Further Refinements ==

A more sophisticated approach would be to replace the time threshold (an hour in the above example) with an analog version or formula that converted time spent reviewing the evidence of a new idea into a a variable for openmindedness. For example, the open-mindedness variable O could be:

:<math>O = t/60</math>

where t is the time spent in minutes. O could then be summed over a series of topics, and normalized by dividing it by the number of topics.

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-11T12:45:17Z

Stairmaster: Undo revision 888180 by StevenAA (talk)

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

='Attention atheists' message=
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.

In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

::"...from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have..." Thanks for the chuckle. My grandfather and mother were Swedish, and believe me, they had a temper. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:00, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, I certainly learned how to spell words in some interesting ways. Some sources for these lovely statements would be much appreciated, as I know Conservapedia prides itself on citations. In particular, "every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people". Also I'd like a fact check on the statement that "the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have", (which also doesn't answer the point I made comparing murder rates between different states in the US).

I'm also not going to respond to your claim about the "evidence that evolution is false", because there is much, much, much, much more evidence supporting the fact of evolution. However, this evidence will likely be ignored by those who want to believe in design, similar to the way the evidence in the article I posted beginning this discussion was ignored.

As far as indoctrination, based off the encounters I've had, it seems most atheists examine the facts and reach that position on their own. Similar to the way that babies make the conscious choice to be baptized or circumcised and become members of a certain religion.

Didn't Jesus talk a lot about equality and treating people equally? I don't think equality is solely an atheist trick, and I'm not sure how it is bad that equality is an "atheist instrument". A society with equality and low murder rates - what a horrible scenario. I know I'd definitely prefer one with high rates of crime and slavery.

--[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 22:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Atheism vs. Ponies page (should I post talk here?)==

The talk page for the essay on Ponies vs. Atheism appears to be this talk page for the article on Atheism. I was going to add my two cents to the former talk page, but I guess it is intended that all talk for that essay is to be posted on this talk page for the article on Atheism. So, here's my two cents:

In psychological/social terms, atheism is defined as the negation of the most basic good sentiments that it is logically possible to have: good sentiments toward a good, overseeing Creator God. So, life is not about atheism. Which means atheism (especially strong atheism) is not an actual quality of good character, but, at best, a lack of certain good character. The fact that many theists are arrogant does not mean that theism is arrogance, but that theists tend to be fallen humans. Theism does not preclude arrogance on the part of the theist in terms of theism, but, neither does atheism preclude arrogance on the part of the atheist in terms of atheism.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 19:54, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again. I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military. I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

ACT-UP

2011-07-10T21:31:28Z

Stairmaster:

'''ACT-UP''' was a militant gay organization which was known for its confrontational actions. The group was founded in 1987 by the [[gay]] writer [[Larry Kramer]] to address the HIV/AIDS epidemic, lobbying for research looking into HIV/AIDS cures or treatments. In December 1989, the group disrupted [[Mass]] at St.Patrick's Cathedral, [[New York]]. The group was protesting the [[Catholic]] Church's teachings against [[homosexual]] acts and [[abortion]]. Many protesters were arrested and Catholics alleged that protesters had committed [[sacrilege]]. Some people from ACT-UP founded [[Queer Nation]] in 1990.

[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-10T19:49:01Z

Stairmaster: Undo revision 888004 by StevenAA (talk)

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

='Attention atheists' message=
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.

In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, I certainly learned how to spell words in some interesting ways. Some sources for these lovely statements would be much appreciated, as I know Conservapedia prides itself on citations. In particular, "every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people". Also I'd like a fact check on the statement that "the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have", (which also doesn't answer the point I made comparing murder rates between different states in the US).

I'm also not going to respond to your claim about the "evidence that evolution is false", because there is much, much, much, much more evidence supporting the fact of evolution. However, this evidence will likely be ignored by those who want to believe in design, similar to the way the evidence in the article I posted beginning this discussion was ignored.

As far as indoctrination, based off the encounters I've had, it seems most atheists examine the facts and reach that position on their own. Similar to the way that babies make the conscious choice to be baptized or circumcised and become members of a certain religion.

Didn't Jesus talk a lot about equality and treating people equally? I don't think equality is solely an atheist trick, and I'm not sure how it is bad that equality is an "atheist instrument". A society with equality and low murder rates - what a horrible scenario. I know I'd definitely prefer one with high rates of crime and slavery.

--[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 22:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Atheism vs. Ponies page (should I post talk here?)==

The talk page for the essay on Ponies vs. Atheism appears to be this talk page for the article on Atheism. I was going to add my two cents to the former talk page, but I guess it is intended that all talk for that essay is to be posted on this talk page for the article on Atheism. So, here's my two cents:

In psychological/social terms, atheism is defined as the negation of the most basic good sentiments that it is logically possible to have: good sentiments toward a good, overseeing Creator God. So, life is not about atheism. Which means atheism (especially strong atheism) is not an actual quality of good character, but, at best, a lack of certain good character. The fact that many theists are arrogant does not mean that theism is arrogance, but that theists tend to be fallen humans. Theism does not preclude arrogance on the part of the theist in terms of theism, but, neither does atheism preclude arrogance on the part of the atheist in terms of atheism.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 19:54, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again. I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military. I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-10T02:20:09Z

Stairmaster: /* Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) */

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

==Attention atheists ==
Please provide proof and evidence that [[atheism]] is true. There is plenty of evidence for [[Christianity]] as can be seen [[Christian apologetics|HERE]] and [[Christian apologetics website resources|HERE]] and no evidence [[atheism]] is true as can be seen [[Attempts to dilute the definition of atheism|HERE]].

Then, please proceed [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|HERE]].

</blockquote>

[[Talk:Atheism/archive1|Archive 1]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive2|Archive 2]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive3|Archive 3]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive4|Archive 4]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive5|Archive 5]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive6|Archive 6]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive7|Archive 7]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive8|Archive 8]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive9|Archive 9]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive10|Archive 10]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive11|Archive 11]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive12|Archive 12]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive13|Archive 13]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive14|Archive 14]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive15|Archive 15]] 
[[Talk:Atheism/archive16|Archive 16]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive17|Archive 17]]
[[Talk:Atheism/archive18|Archive 18]]

{| align=right border=2 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 3px; border-color: #d0d0d0; background: #d0e0e0; margin: 2em;"
__TOC__
 

='Attention atheists' message=
There is a mistake in the text of your message. You should ask atheists for proof and evidence (by the way, aren't "proof" and "evidence" synonyms?) that atheism is true, not false. But then again, I am not sure that "true" and "false", as adjectives, can apply very well to "atheism", so I'd rather change it to "Please provide evidence against the existence of God", or to "Please provide evidence that atheism is logically justifiable".
Also (but this is nitpicking), there is a full stop after the question mark.
Please don't get me wrong, I am a devout Christian and I am applaud your crusade against atheism, but I just had some minor issues about the FORM of your message :)
I did not correct the text of your message directly, because it is in a talk page, and not in a main page.
Best regards,
--[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 08:28, 17 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Someone had changed the message. I changed it back. [[User:Conservative|conservative]]

== Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) ==

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman analyzed previous social science research on secularity and non-belief, and concluded that societal well-being is positively correlated with irreligion. His findings relating specifically to atheism include:

Compared to religious people, "atheists and secular people" are less nationalistic, prejudiced, antisemitic, racist, dogmatic, ethnocentric, close-minded, and authoritarian.

In the US, in states with the highest percentages of atheists, the murder rate is lower than average. In the most religious US states, the murder rate is higher than average.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf
:Zuckerman is a secular, that's the word Atheists use when they want to disguise their believes. Naturally an atheist says that societies are better off without religion, [[Atheism and Mass Murder| it's clear that this is not the case]]. Now pick up a history book and start educating yourself instead of believing atheist propaganda. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 16:55, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

True, he is secular, but one is either secular or religious, and both sides have a stake in the argument - by your logic, no one can comment on the validity of statements regarding the characteristics of religious or non-religious people, since both a secular or non-secular commenter would want to slant the argument towards their point of view. What Zuckerman does do is lay out the results of previous studies, perform a meta-analysis, and draw reasonable conclusions from the results of his analysis. Mass murder (however sensational it is), does not speak to the question Zuckerman tries to answer with his study. I think a complete, non-biased discussion about the relationship between atheism and morality should include all of the studies that address the issue. After all, we should be teaching the controversy. --[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 21:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

:Secularism is the attempt to take religion out of everything, as Atheism doesn't see itself as a religion - actively attacking all other religions - it is clear that secularization actually means atheismization. Atheism is a religion. Quoting some falsy famous Atheist leaders who I fail to remember now "Religion is believe despite evidence" - Atheist believe despite the evidence for Christianity, they believe despite the evidence that evolution is false, they believe despite the evidence that the big bang did not occure, and son on in thousands of cases. Atheism is a religion even by the standards atheists use. Atheism is bad for society because atheism leaves no reason not to be selfish, not to follow the path Darwin described so pseudoscientifically. Atheism is all that what immorality means. Why don't we see this you might ask. Because Atheists know that they can't behave this way in a society that has Christian roots. They would be kicked out, they would not be tolerated, every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people. They are not, they are deeply selfish people that trick innocent Christians, Jews and all other people that don't suppress the knownledge that they are religious, every time they are friendly into thinking that they are friendly.
:Christians can know the truth, because they know that Christianity is true their basis of thinking is not contaminated by what is false. No matter if Atheists knownlingly lie to us or are just too indoctrinated or too stupid to see the truth how wrong they are, we shoot look twice at everything they say. And if an Atheist claims that Atheism makes for a better society he does not only meassure with his own Atheist instruments of "equality" and "social equality" which is problematic but also is he biased in his perseption of how good it actually is. Of course he will think that such a society is "better" (aside that the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have) simply because he is not reminded all the time how awefully wrong he is. You are naturally free as a member of a totalitarian state if you are an adherent to that ideology, you simply will not notice any difference.
:I sincerely hope you learned something today. --[[User:StevenAA|StevenAA]] 13:38, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Well, I certainly learned how to spell words in some interesting ways. Some sources for these lovely statements would be much appreciated, as I know Conservapedia prides itself on citations. In particular, "every smile from an atheist towards a Christian is fake, every friendly gesture is a trick to make us think they are good people". Also I'd like a fact check on the statement that "the murder rates also stem from the fact that Scandinavians have no temper, which Americans have", (which also doesn't answer the point I made comparing murder rates between different states in the US).

I'm also not going to respond to your claim about the "evidence that evolution is false", because there is much, much, much, much more evidence supporting the fact of evolution. However, this evidence will likely be ignored by those who want to believe in design, similar to the way the evidence in the article I posted beginning this discussion was ignored.

As far as indoctrination, based off the encounters I've had, it seems most atheists examine the facts and reach that position on their own. Similar to the way that babies make the conscious choice to be baptized or circumcised and become members of a certain religion.

Didn't Jesus talk a lot about equality and treating people equally? I don't think equality is solely an atheist trick, and I'm not sure how it is bad that equality is an "atheist instrument". A society with equality and low murder rates - what a horrible scenario. I know I'd definitely prefer one with high rates of crime and slavery.

--[[User:Stairmaster|Stairmaster]] 22:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

== Atheism vs. Ponies page (should I post talk here?)==

The talk page for the essay on Ponies vs. Atheism appears to be this talk page for the article on Atheism. I was going to add my two cents to the former talk page, but I guess it is intended that all talk for that essay is to be posted on this talk page for the article on Atheism. So, here's my two cents:

In psychological/social terms, atheism is defined as the negation of the most basic good sentiments that it is logically possible to have: good sentiments toward a good, overseeing Creator God. So, life is not about atheism. Which means atheism (especially strong atheism) is not an actual quality of good character, but, at best, a lack of certain good character. The fact that many theists are arrogant does not mean that theism is arrogance, but that theists tend to be fallen humans. Theism does not preclude arrogance on the part of the theist in terms of theism, but, neither does atheism preclude arrogance on the part of the atheist in terms of atheism.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 19:54, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== "Weak" vs "Strong" atheism; ''Implicit'' vs ''Explicit'', etc. ==

I wanted to add something like this, but can't because the page is locked. If an admin thinks it is a good idea, please add it:
:Many atheists like to make a distinction between ''strong atheism'' and ''weak atheism''. They define ''strong atheism'' as believing God does not exist, while ''weak atheism'' as neither believing nor disbelieving. However, this usage is incorrect, and has been invented by atheists to boost their numbers. If you believe God does not exist, you are an atheist. If you neither believe nor disbelieve, you aren't an atheist, you are some kind of agnostic.
:Another distinction atheists like to propose is between ''implicit'' and ''explicit'' atheism. Explicit atheism means active conscious rejection of God's existence. "Implicit atheism" refers to having no belief in God, due to not being aware of the concept. Atheists use this to argue that "babies are atheists", again in order to boost their numbers. However, again, this is an abuse of terminology. "Implicit atheism" is not atheism. Babies, just because they haven't learnt the concept of "God" yet, are not atheists. To be an atheist, you must have encountered the idea of "God", and chosen to reject it. A baby isn't even an agnostic, since an agnostic has encountered the idea, and isn't personally sure whether it is right, or even thinks we'll never know if it is. A baby hasn't encountered the idea yet.
:Another specious atheist argument is "Christians are atheists about all Gods but one". But this ignores that ''god'' is used in two different ways. Little-g god, refers to a limited being, like the gods of mythology, with immense but not absolute power. It is possible for multiple such limited beings to exist. Capital-G God, refers to an omnipotent being, as conceived in religions such as Judaism and Christianity. It is impossible for there to exist more than one omnipotent being - what happens if two omnipotent beings have a disagreement? So, Zeus is not comparable to the Christian God, and the Christian's disbelief in Zeus is not a form of atheism.
What do people think? I think this is a good way to address some common atheist distortions. Of course, maybe it could be worded better, feel free to edit it if someone decides to... [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 16:50, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::I think we do a good enough job on the definition of atheism and we also link to [http://creation.com/atheism Creation Ministries International's atheism article] which goes into the implicit vs. explicit atheism issue. I think where Conservapedia could be stronger is the "[[Atheism is a religion]]" issue. Like this material: http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion except summarized and compact. Also, courts have called atheism a religion. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:41, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Here is what Conservapedia has now: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_is_a_religion Except for another topic I want to add later which I have referred to as the [[pièce de résistance]] I don't want the article to get much bigger as I believe it is a large article although it is an organized article that hits the main/common/interesting points that are or can be raised about this topic. I really like the wiki software in that it creates a table of contents so people can read what they want to read easily. I hit the print preview on Firefox 5.0 and it says the article is 63 pages long if printed out. It is probably Conservapedia's largest article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:49, 6 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I understand your logic, the article is big already and you don't want it to get bigger, that makes sense. Do you think the points I made would fit in another article, maybe one of the other articles the site has about atheism, or else a brand new one (e.g. "Definition of atheism")? And then I guess, this can be the main atheism article, and it can link to various subarticles, for people interested in more detail on specific points about atheism. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 15:30, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
:::Expanding [[Definition of atheism]] sounds good. I will get a clip of [[William Lane Craig]] challenging atheist [[Christopher Hitchens]] on the definition of atheism once you complete the article which I predict will be a popular article. Hitchens claimed his earphone didn't work and got nervous. Even an atheist said Dr. Craig "spanked Hitchen's like a foolish child" at the debate. [http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:44, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Hi Conservative, please see I have added my content to the [[Definition of atheism]] article. Please let me know if there is anything I could improve. I think your clip sounds good. The reality is, William Lane Craig is a professional philosopher, Christopher Hitchens is a dilettante journalist. I think, if atheists want to debate Craig, they need to find people on Craig's own level, or else they'll just get steamrollered. I never watched that debate, but I've seen others - like a video of this atheist geologist who debated Craig, and I really felt sorry for the guy, because Craig was just wiping the floor with him. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 18:34, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::I would go into the implications of atheism being defined as a religion. John Calvert, the intelligent design lawyer (I provided two links for you), believes that if atheism is defined as a religion then you can argue that the evolutionary paradigm should not be taught as it advances the religion of atheism. It has been a while since I looked at his material but I think that is the gist of it. I would read Calvert's material again. I think it is important to include that material now that people are insisting in "atheism chaplains" for the military. I see possible future precedents being set in favor of Calvert's position. In addition, do any other courts outside the US recognize atheism as religion? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:20, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-09T01:42:40Z

Stairmaster: /* Atheism and Racism, new evidence (from Wikipedia) */

Talk:Atheism

2011-07-08T20:39:31Z

Stairmaster: