Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Tantalum

2022-04-15T23:19:37Z

Sunda62:

{{Element | name=Tantalum | symbol=Ta | anumber=73 | amass=180.9479 amu | state=Solid | class=Transition Metals | cstructure=Cubic Body Centered | color=Gray | date=1802 | discname=Anders G. Ekeberg | origname=From King [[Tantalus]] of Greek mythology | uses=Used in metal alloys. Tantalum pentoxide is used in capacitors, condensers, cutting tools, vacuum tube filaments and in camera lenses to increase refracting power. | obtained=Occurs chiefly in the mineral [[tantalite]]. Always found with [[niobium]]. }}
[[Category:Elements]]
[[Category:Metals]]
{{Periodic table}}

Tantalus

2022-04-15T23:18:46Z

Sunda62:

In [[Greek mythology]], '''Tantalus''' was the father of [[Pelops]], whom he cut up and served to the Greek gods at a feast. In punishment, the gods sent him to [[Tartarus]], where he was always up to his waist in water and surrounded by delicious-looking grapes. Whenever he bent down to drink the water, it would recede away from him, and whenever he reached out to pick the grapes, they too would draw back out of his reach. From this myth we get the word ''tantalizing'', and also one of [[Aesop]]'s Fables.

He was the son of [[Zeus]] and the father of [[Niobe]]; the elements [[tantalum]] and [[niobium]] were named after these two characters by swedish chemist [[Anders Gustaf Ekeberg]].<ref>[https://www.tanb.org/about-tantalum/tantalum-history ''Early history''], retried from [[Tantalum-Niobium International Study Center]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref>

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Greek Mythology]]

Set theory

2022-04-15T23:08:39Z

Sunda62:

'''Set theory''' is a branch of [[mathematics]] dealing with collections of objects, called [[set]]s. It revolutionized mathematics and made possible enormous new insights. The approach of set theory also offers a powerful way to think about life, handle [[anxiety]], escape [[addiction]], and understand the miracles in the [[New Testament]]. Problems, which otherwise seem impossible to overcome, can be more easily solved or managed with a set-theory approach.

The devoutly [[Christian]] founder of set theory, [[Georg Cantor]], viewed it as bringing freedom to mathematics. He summarized set theory as follows: "A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One."<ref>http://thinkexist.com/quotes/georg_cantor/</ref> [[David Hilbert]], a leading mathematician in the early 20th century, described set theory as follows:
{{cquote|No one shall drive us from the paradise which Cantor has created for us.<ref>https://plus.maths.org/content/glimpse-cantors-paradise</ref>}}

[[John von Neumann]], considered by many to have been the most brilliant man of the 20th century (and a convert to [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholicism]], did his best work in set theory. He developed a definition of an ordinal number as the set of all smaller ordinal numbers, the definition that is commonly accepted today.<ref>https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-von-Neumann</ref> That approach helps circumvent issues caused by the transfinite numbers of Georg Cantor.

The language of set theory is based on a single fundamental relation, called membership. We say that <math>x</math> is a member of <math>A</math> (in symbols <math>x \in A</math>), or that the set <math>A</math> contains <math>x</math> as an element.<ref>The mathematician Giuseppe Peano created the symbol ∈ in 1889 to mean "is an element of," from the Greek epsilon that is the first letter of εἰμί, which means "I am."</ref> The understanding is that a set is determined by its elements; in other words, two sets are deemed equal if they have exactly the same elements,<ref name=stanford>[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/ ''Set Theory''], retrieved from [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> or, equivalently, if each is a [[subset]] of the other.

==History of set theory==

It was developed in the late 1800s, primarily by the German mathematician [[Georg Cantor]]. This initial attempt became known as "naive set theory" because mathematicians found flaws in it. It was replaced by "axiomatic set theory" in the early 1900s. The most commonly used such axiomatization is [[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] set theory.

An initial insight of set theory, against intense opposition by established mathematicians, was that some infinities are larger than others. Previously it was thought that infinity had only one size.

One paradox in naive set theory was announced by [[Bertrand Russell]] in 1901, and is known as [[Russell's Paradox]].

Like all sufficiently strong mathematical theories, set theory is incomplete, as shown by [[Kurt Gödel]]. However, set theory is the received axiomatization of mathematics today, with subjects like [[analysis]], [[algebra]], [[topology]], and [[geometry]] using set theory and its language for their own foundation.

==The empty set==

The empty set is the set with no members. Because sets are uniquely defined by membership, the empty set is unique. The empty set is usually denoted by {} or ∅.

In the axiomatic set theory, '''any''' other set is build over the empty set. An example of a set with one element is the set { ∅ } - the set whose single element is the empty set. Von Neumann called the empty set ''0'', this set { ∅ } = ''1'', and proceeded in defining each ''natural number'' ''n'' as the set with the ''n'' elements from ''0'' to ''n-1''. In this way, it's possible to define the (infinite) set of natural numbers. Ordered pairs, functions, relations, etc, are all defined as sets with some properties.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/science/set-theory/Schema-for-transfinite-induction-and-ordinal-arithmetic ''Axiomatic set theory''], retrieved from [[Enciclopedia Britannica]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref><ref name=stanford />

== See also ==

*[http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/24854/what-are-the-issues-in-modern-set-theory Forum explaining the status of set theory in mathematics and philosophy today]
*[http://castle.eiu.edu/~mathcs/mat2120/index/set03-2x3.pdf good overview of set theory]

==References==

<References/>
{{Greatest Thinkers}}
[[Category:Set Theory]]

Set theory

2022-04-15T23:01:29Z

Sunda62: /* The empty set */

'''Set theory''' is a branch of [[mathematics]] dealing with collections of objects, called [[set]]s. It revolutionized mathematics and made possible enormous new insights. The approach of set theory also offers a powerful way to think about life, handle [[anxiety]], escape [[addiction]], and understand the miracles in the [[New Testament]]. Problems, which otherwise seem impossible to overcome, can be more easily solved or managed with a set-theory approach.

The devoutly [[Christian]] founder of set theory, [[Georg Cantor]], viewed it as bringing freedom to mathematics. He summarized set theory as follows: "A set is a Many that allows itself to be thought of as a One."<ref>http://thinkexist.com/quotes/georg_cantor/</ref> [[David Hilbert]], a leading mathematician in the early 20th century, described set theory as follows:
{{cquote|No one shall drive us from the paradise which Cantor has created for us.<ref>https://plus.maths.org/content/glimpse-cantors-paradise</ref>}}

[[John von Neumann]], considered by many to have been the most brilliant man of the 20th century (and a convert to [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholicism]], did his best work in set theory. He developed a definition of an ordinal number as the set of all smaller ordinal numbers, the definition that is commonly accepted today.<ref>https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-von-Neumann</ref> That approach helps circumvent issues caused by the transfinite numbers of Georg Cantor.

The language of set theory is based on a single fundamental relation, called membership. We say that <math>x</math> is a member of <math>A</math> (in symbols <math>x \in A</math>), or that the set <math>A</math> contains <math>x</math> as an element.<ref>The mathematician Giuseppe Peano created the symbol ∈ in 1889 to mean "is an element of," from the Greek epsilon that is the first letter of εἰμί, which means "I am."</ref> The understanding is that a set is determined by its elements; in other words, two sets are deemed equal if they have exactly the same elements,<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/</ref> or, equivalently, if each is a [[subset]] of the other.

==History of set theory==

It was developed in the late 1800s, primarily by the German mathematician [[Georg Cantor]]. This initial attempt became known as "naive set theory" because mathematicians found flaws in it. It was replaced by "axiomatic set theory" in the early 1900s. The most commonly used such axiomatization is [[Zermelo-Fraenkel]] set theory.

An initial insight of set theory, against intense opposition by established mathematicians, was that some infinities are larger than others. Previously it was thought that infinity had only one size.

One paradox in naive set theory was announced by [[Bertrand Russell]] in 1901, and is known as [[Russell's Paradox]].

Like all sufficiently strong mathematical theories, set theory is incomplete, as shown by [[Kurt Gödel]]. However, set theory is the received axiomatization of mathematics today, with subjects like [[analysis]], [[algebra]], [[topology]], and [[geometry]] using set theory and its language for their own foundation.

==The empty set==

The empty set is the set with no members. Because sets are uniquely defined by membership, the empty set is unique. The empty set is usually denoted by {} or ∅.

In the axiomatic set theory, '''any''' other set is build over the empty set. For example, an example of a set with one element is the set { ∅ } - the set whose single element is the empty set. Von Neumann called the empty set ''0'', and this set { ∅ } = ''1'', and proceeded in defining each ''natural number'' ''n'' as the set with the n elements from 0 to n-1. In this way, it's possible to define the (infinite) set of natural numbers. Ordered pairs, functions, relations, etc, are all defined as sets with some properties.<ref>[https://www.britannica.com/science/set-theory/Schema-for-transfinite-induction-and-ordinal-arithmetic ''Axiomatic set theory''], retrieved from [[Enciclopedia Britannica]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref><ref>[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/set-theory/ ''Set Theory''], retrieved from [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref>

== See also ==

*[http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/24854/what-are-the-issues-in-modern-set-theory Forum explaining the status of set theory in mathematics and philosophy today]
*[http://castle.eiu.edu/~mathcs/mat2120/index/set03-2x3.pdf good overview of set theory]

==References==

<References/>
{{Greatest Thinkers}}
[[Category:Set Theory]]

Socialism and Freedom Party

2022-04-15T22:45:03Z

Sunda62: Created page with "You read it right: there is a brazilian party called Socialismo e Liberdade (''Socialism and Freedom''). And it's not a joke. Yeah, you probably have already read that ''War i..."

You read it right: there is a brazilian party called Socialismo e Liberdade (''Socialism and Freedom''). And it's not a joke. Yeah, you probably have already read that ''War is Peace'', ''Freedom is Slavery'' and ''Ignorance is Strength''. Now add to that list ''Socialism and Freedom''.

The (not-humorously) self-called '''Partido Socialismo e Liberdade''' (''Socialism and Freedom Party'', '''PSOL''') is an extreme-left brazilian party <ref>[https://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/comissoes/comissoes-mistas/cpcms/siglas/siglario2/p/PSOL.html ''PSOL''], retrieved from the official site of [[Câmara de Deputados]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> that advocates the abolishment of private property,<ref>[https://revistaoeste.com/politica/lider-do-mtst-boulos-promete-novas-invasoes-como-a-da-bolsa-de-valores/ ''Líder do MTST, Boulos promete novas invasões, como a da Bolsa de Valores''], retrieved from [[Revista Oeste]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> the mass-murder of unborn babies,<ref>[https://www.jornaldocomercio.com/_conteudo/2017/03/politica/550295-psol-e-ong-pedem-no-stf-que-aborto-deixe-de-ser-crime-ate-12-semana-de-gestacao.html ''PSOL e ONG pedem no STF que aborto deixe de ser crime até 12ª semana de gestação''], retrieved from [[Jornal do Comércio]] in Apr 15, 2022.</ref> free drugs (including crack, cocaine and marijuana) for all,<ref>[https://noticias.r7.com/eleicoes-2016/rio-de-janeiro/freixo-fala-em-dosagem-segura-para-usuarios-de-crack-27102016 Freixo fala em “dosagem segura” para usuários de crack], retrieved from [[R7]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> the extinction of police forces,<ref> [https://www.gazetadopovo.com.br/vida-e-cidadania/fim-pm-propostas-desmilitarizacao-policias/ ''Fim da PM? Entenda as propostas que pedem a desmilitarização das polícias'' retrieved from [[Gazeta do Povo]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> government controlled censorship,<ref>[https://www.camara.leg.br/noticias/454060-lider-do-psol-diz-que-controle-de-midia-foi-transformado-em-um-fantasma ''Líder do Psol diz que controle de mídia foi transformado em um “fantasma”], retrieved from [[Agência Câmara de Notícias]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> and pedophily.<ref>[https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/fichadetramitacao?idProposicao=1050889 PL 882/2015 Projeto de Lei], retrieved from [[Câmara dos Deputados]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> I probably missed some other perversion, but I guess it's time to puke.

== References ==
<references>
</references>

[[Category:Brazilian Political Parties]]

Social Liberal Party

2022-04-15T22:16:35Z

Sunda62: /* See also */

{{PoliticalParty
| party_name = Social Liberal Party
| party_logo =
| website = [http://www.psl.org.br www.psl.org.br]
| leader = Luciano Caldas Bivar
| Parleader =
| foundation = October 30, 1994
| ideology = [[Libertarianism]] [[Fiscal conservatism]] [[Liberalism]] (former)
| position = ''Fiscal'': [[Free market]] ''Social'': [[Social conservatism]]
| international =
| colors = purple and white
| footnotes =
}}

'''Social Liberal Party''' ('''PSL''') is a [[conservative]] [[Brazil]]ian political party led by [[Jair Bolsonaro]], despite what its name suggests. The party has changed its political ideology several times since its creation. ideologically connected to the [[libertarian]] and objectivist [[right]]. It was founded with moderately [[liberal]] ideas, who argued that the [[federal government]] should spend on [[healthcare]], [[education]], [[security]], [[energy]] and other basic industries, but that would total space for other sectors would be dominated by the private sector.

However, since 2015, taking advantage of the fact of the party being small and insignificant, the [[libertarian]] internal tendency ''LIVRES'' (in English: ''FREE'') decided to make an ideological reformulation in the party, leading the party to a more [[right-wing]] [[liberalism]], keeping the moderate social ideas, but turning the party [[fiscal conservatism|fiscally conservative]] and advocate of [[limited government]].<ref>[http://rodrigoconstantino.com/artigos/psl-se-renova-e-foca-mais-no-liberal-da-sigla-ou-its-happening/ PSL is renewed and more focused on the "Liberal" of Acronym]</ref>

The party shifted further to the right, especially on social issues, when Jair Bolsonaro took control over it. Its members are socially conservative Christians.<ref>Hoffman, Matthew Cullinan (May 1, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-brazilian-representative-declares-long-live-christ-the-king-on-floor-of-chamber-of-deputies WATCH: Brazilian rep declares ‘Long Live Christ the King!’ in floor speech]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved May 2, 2019.</ref>

The party became a [[right-wing]] party during the 2018 elections, as it took conservative positions on both economic and social issues. Previously, it took social liberal positions, but it has since shifted.

According to its official website, the party supports the [[American]] model of [[federalism]].<ref>[http://www.psl.org.br/ Our issues]</ref>

In 2019, in the first year of the presidency of Bolsonaro, the party leaders became disappointed at Bolsonaro for not giving the party any chance to gain money by corruption.<ref>[https://jovempan.com.br/opiniao-jovem-pan/comentaristas/rodrigo-constantino/constantino-crise-no-psl-e-disputa-por-poder-e-recursos.html ''Constantino: Crise no PSL é disputa por poder e recursos'']], retrived from [[Jovem Pan]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> They betrayed Bolsonaro and conspired against him,<ref>[https://noticias.r7.com/politica/lider-do-psl-na-camara-afirma-que-vai-implodir-bolsonaro-17102019 ''Líder do PSL na Câmara afirma que vai 'implodir' Bolsonaro''], retrieved from [[R7]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref>, Bolsonaro broke off with PSL.<ref>[https://noticias.r7.com/prisma/r7-planalto/bolsonaro-anuncia-saida-do-psl-e-criacao-do-alianca-pelo-brasil-12112019 ''Bolsonaro anuncia saída do PSL e criação do Aliança pelo Brasil''], retrieved from [[R7]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref>. In 2022, the party united with [[Democratas]], another allegedly right-wing party, and formed a new party, [[União Brasil]].<ref>[https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/politica/noticia/2022-02/tse-aprova-criacao-da-uniao-brasil-fusao-entre-dem-e-psl ''TSE aprova criação da União Brasil, fusão entre DEM e PSL''], retrieved from [[Agência Brasil]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==
*[[New Party (Brazil)]], another Brazilian allegedly libertarian party that has, since 2019, became allied with the extreme-left parties

{{brazilian political parties}}
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Conservative Political Parties]]
[[Category:Brazilian Political Parties]]

Social Liberal Party

2022-04-15T22:15:26Z

Sunda62: Party betrays Bolsonaro in 2019, and is extinct (by fusion) in 2022

{{PoliticalParty
| party_name = Social Liberal Party
| party_logo =
| website = [http://www.psl.org.br www.psl.org.br]
| leader = Luciano Caldas Bivar
| Parleader =
| foundation = October 30, 1994
| ideology = [[Libertarianism]] [[Fiscal conservatism]] [[Liberalism]] (former)
| position = ''Fiscal'': [[Free market]] ''Social'': [[Social conservatism]]
| international =
| colors = purple and white
| footnotes =
}}

'''Social Liberal Party''' ('''PSL''') is a [[conservative]] [[Brazil]]ian political party led by [[Jair Bolsonaro]], despite what its name suggests. The party has changed its political ideology several times since its creation. ideologically connected to the [[libertarian]] and objectivist [[right]]. It was founded with moderately [[liberal]] ideas, who argued that the [[federal government]] should spend on [[healthcare]], [[education]], [[security]], [[energy]] and other basic industries, but that would total space for other sectors would be dominated by the private sector.

However, since 2015, taking advantage of the fact of the party being small and insignificant, the [[libertarian]] internal tendency ''LIVRES'' (in English: ''FREE'') decided to make an ideological reformulation in the party, leading the party to a more [[right-wing]] [[liberalism]], keeping the moderate social ideas, but turning the party [[fiscal conservatism|fiscally conservative]] and advocate of [[limited government]].<ref>[http://rodrigoconstantino.com/artigos/psl-se-renova-e-foca-mais-no-liberal-da-sigla-ou-its-happening/ PSL is renewed and more focused on the "Liberal" of Acronym]</ref>

The party shifted further to the right, especially on social issues, when Jair Bolsonaro took control over it. Its members are socially conservative Christians.<ref>Hoffman, Matthew Cullinan (May 1, 2019). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/watch-brazilian-representative-declares-long-live-christ-the-king-on-floor-of-chamber-of-deputies WATCH: Brazilian rep declares ‘Long Live Christ the King!’ in floor speech]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved May 2, 2019.</ref>

The party became a [[right-wing]] party during the 2018 elections, as it took conservative positions on both economic and social issues. Previously, it took social liberal positions, but it has since shifted.

According to its official website, the party supports the [[American]] model of [[federalism]].<ref>[http://www.psl.org.br/ Our issues]</ref>

In 2019, in the first year of the presidency of Bolsonaro, the party leaders became disappointed at Bolsonaro for not giving the party any chance to gain money by corruption.<ref>[https://jovempan.com.br/opiniao-jovem-pan/comentaristas/rodrigo-constantino/constantino-crise-no-psl-e-disputa-por-poder-e-recursos.html ''Constantino: Crise no PSL é disputa por poder e recursos'']], retrived from [[Jovem Pan]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref> They betrayed Bolsonaro and conspired against him,<ref>[https://noticias.r7.com/politica/lider-do-psl-na-camara-afirma-que-vai-implodir-bolsonaro-17102019 ''Líder do PSL na Câmara afirma que vai 'implodir' Bolsonaro''], retrieved from [[R7]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref>, Bolsonaro broke off with PSL.<ref>[https://noticias.r7.com/prisma/r7-planalto/bolsonaro-anuncia-saida-do-psl-e-criacao-do-alianca-pelo-brasil-12112019 ''Bolsonaro anuncia saída do PSL e criação do Aliança pelo Brasil''], retrieved from [[R7]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref>. In 2022, the party united with [[Democratas]], another allegedly right-wing party, and formed a new party, [[União Brasil]].<ref>[https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/politica/noticia/2022-02/tse-aprova-criacao-da-uniao-brasil-fusao-entre-dem-e-psl ''TSE aprova criação da União Brasil, fusão entre DEM e PSL''], retrieved from [[Agência Brasil]] on Apr 15, 2022.</ref>

== References ==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==
*[[New Party (Brazil)]], another Brazilian libertarian party

{{brazilian political parties}}
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Conservative Political Parties]]
[[Category:Brazilian Political Parties]]

Fernando Henrique Cardoso

2022-04-15T21:51:03Z

Sunda62:

'''Fernando Henrique Cardoso''', usually referenced in Brazil as '''FHC''', is a brazilian politician and former president of Brazil, during the years from 1995 to 2002.<ref name=govbr>[http://presidentes.an.gov.br/index.php/arquivo-nacional/60-servicos/registro-de-autoridade/100-fernando-henrique-cardoso Fernando Henrique Cardoso], retrieved from ''presidentes.an.gov.br'' on April 15, 2022</ref>

He was born in [[Rio de Janeiro]], on June 18, 1931. He graduated in ''Social Sciences'' (sic) in 1952. During the 1950s, he was an editor of ''Fundamentos'', a magazine of the [[Brazilian Communist Party]]. He ran for brazilian Senate in 1978, and became senator for São Paulo in 1982, when [[Franco Montoro]] resigned to ran for governor of the state of São Paulo. He ran for Mayor of the city of [[São Paulo]] in 1985, and was re-elected senator in 1986.<ref name=govbr />

A hidden communist, in 1993 he made a pact with [[Lula]], in Princeton, to share power between the two main leftist parties in Brazil: PSBD (''Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira'') and PT (Brazilian [[Nazi Party|Arbeiterpartei]]). PSBD would pose as the moderate party, simulating some respect for democratic institutions and private property, while PT would be openly marxist, aligning with totalitarian regimes and drug cartels.<ref>[https://www.jornaldacidadeonline.com.br/noticias/21863/as-entranhas-do-pacto-de-princeton-entre-lula-e-fhc As entranhas do “Pacto de Princeton” entre Lula e FHC], retrieved from ''Jornal da Cidade Online'' on April 15, 2022.</ref>

He became Ministro da Fazenda (finance federal secretary) of president [[Itamar Franco]] in 1993, and in 1994 was elected president of Brazil. He was the president from Jan 1, 1995 until Jan 1, 2003, when he was succeeded by Lula.<ref name=govbr />

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cardoso, Fernando Henrique}}
[[Category:Brazilian People]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Leftists]]
[[Category:Former Heads of State]]

Fernando Henrique Cardoso

2022-04-15T21:20:48Z

Sunda62: Created page with "'''Fernando Henrique Cardoso''', usually referenced in Brazil as '''FHC''', is a brazilian politician and former president of Brazil, during the years from 1994 to 2002.<ref n..."

'''Fernando Henrique Cardoso''', usually referenced in Brazil as '''FHC''', is a brazilian politician and former president of Brazil, during the years from 1994 to 2002.<ref name=govbr>[http://presidentes.an.gov.br/index.php/arquivo-nacional/60-servicos/registro-de-autoridade/100-fernando-henrique-cardoso Fernando Henrique Cardoso], retrieved from ''presidentes.an.gov.br'' on April 15, 2022</ref>

He was born in [[Rio de Janeiro]], on June 18, 1931. He graduated in ''Social Sciences'' (sic) in 1952. During the 1950s, he was an editor of ''Fundamentos'', a magazine of the [[Brazilian Communist Party]]. He ran for brazilian Senate in 1978, and became senator for São Paulo in 1982, when [[Franco Montoro]] resigned to ran for governor of the state of São Paulo. He ran for Mayor of the city of [[São Paulo]] in 1985, and was re-elected senator in 1986.<ref name=govbr />

A hidden communist, in 1993 he made a pact with [[Lula]], in Princeton, to share power between the two main leftist parties in Brazil: PSBD (''Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira'') and PT (Brazilian [[Nazi Party|Arbeiterpartei]]). PSBD would pose as the moderate party, simulating some respect for democratic institutions and private property, while PT would be openly marxist, aligning with totalitarian regimes and drug cartels.<ref>[https://www.jornaldacidadeonline.com.br/noticias/21863/as-entranhas-do-pacto-de-princeton-entre-lula-e-fhc As entranhas do “Pacto de Princeton” entre Lula e FHC], retrieved from ''Jornal da Cidade Online'' on April 15, 2022.</ref>

He became Ministro da Fazenda (finance federal secretary) of president [[Itamar Franco]] in 1993, and in 1994 was elected president of Brazil. He was the president from Jan 1, 1995 until Jan 1, 2003, when he was succeeded by Lula.<ref name=govbr />

==References==
{{Reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cardoso, Fernando Henrique}}
[[Category:Brazilian People]]
[[Category:Socialists]]
[[Category:Leftists]]
[[Category:Former Heads of State]]

Emmanuel Macron

2022-04-04T01:33:04Z

Sunda62: /* Biography */ Brigitte Macron transsexual?

{{Officeholder
|name=Emmanuel Macron
|image=Assets-weforum-macron.PNG
|party=[[En Marche!]]
|offices=|offices={{Officeholder/president
|country=France
|number=25th
|vp=Édouard Philippe (Prime Minister)
|terms=May 14, 2017 –
|preceded=[[François Hollande]]
|succeeded
}}
|religion=Roman Catholic (Formerly), Agnostic
}}
'''Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frederic Macron''' (born December 21, 1977) is an [[Liberal elite|elitist]] [[liberal]] and [[globalist]] [[France|French]] politician and a former Banker of the Rothschild & Cie Banque.<ref>http://thesaker.is/french-elite-chose-their-new-pawn-emmanuel-macron-former-director-of-banque-rothschild/</ref> On May 7, 2017, he won the French Presidential election, defeating [[right-wing populist]] [[Marine Le Pen]], with 66.1% of the vote, and he became the 25th president of the French Republic a week later. Macron is a [[europhile]] who strongly supports the [[socialist]] and [[Globalism|globalist]] [[European Union]], as well as the [[War on Sovereignty]]. Macron is an asset of the [[World Economic Forum]]<ref>https://assets.weforum.org/sf_account/image/responsive_small_webp_L9XYA0Ip_eCHyb-H7OhDlYE9bjRR0iG0Nm9PFByPqNA.webp</ref> and an [[agnosticism|agnostic]].<ref>[https://www.thelocal.fr/20180625/meeting-with-pope-puts-macrons-religious-views-in-spotlight Meeting with Pope puts Macron's religious views in spotlight], ''The Local''</ref>

==Biography==
Macron was born on December 21, 1977, in [[Amiens]], he studied on the Jésuites de la Providence and later philosophy on the Paris Nanterre University.

He began a relationship with Brigitte, his (married) teacher in high school, once he turned 18 (the French age of majority; the two first met when he was 15 and she was 39). His parents attempted to end the relationship by sending him away for his final year of school, but the two reconnected and married after her divorce from her first husband (and father of her three children) was final. The couple has no children of their own.

A research done by investigative journalist Natacha Rey has concluded that Brigitte Macron, born Jean Michel Trogneux, is a [[transsexual]] "woman".<ref>Vock, Ido (December 22, 2021) [''What lies behind conspiracy theories targeting Brigitte Macron''|https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2021/12/what-lies-behind-conspiracy-theories-targeting-brigitte-macron] ''The New Statesman''. Retrieved April 3, 2022</ref><ref>La rédaction Freelance infos (March 18, 2022) [''Jean Michel Trogneux serait Brigitte Macron, c’est quoi cette rumeur ?''|https://freelanceinfos.fr/jean-michel-trogneux-brigitte-macron-serait-la-folle-rumeur/] ''FreelanceInfos''. Retrieved April 3, 2022</ref><ref>[''Brigitte Macron serait née Jean-Michel Trogneux : visée par une rumeur transphobe, elle va porter plainte''|https://www.ladepeche.fr/2021/12/17/jeanmicheltrogneux-brigitte-macron-ciblee-par-une-rumeur-transphobe-sur-les-reseaux-sociaux-9998102.php] ''La Depeche''. December 17, 2021. Retrieved April 3, 2022</ref> Most leftist sites and media claim that this is [[fake news]].<ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59753535</ref> If this is true, she will be the second transexual to achieve ''First Lady'' status in the [[G7]] group of countries, after [[Michelle Obama]] aka Michael Lavaughn Robinson.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Michelle_Obama_Transgender_Guide.html?id=_wSfDgAAQBAJ The Michelle Obama Transgender Guide], Richard Saunders, Lulu.com, Mar 16, 2017</ref>

==Business career==
Macron worked for the Inspection générale des finances, a financial administrative body in [[France]]. He left this company with a transfer of €50.000.<ref>https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/whos-behind-the-mysterious-rise-of-emmanuel-macron/</ref> After that he worked in a high rank at the Banque Rothschild & Cie.

==''En Marche!'' and the 2017 French presidential election==
[[File:Blogpost.jpeg|right|300px|thumb|Macron hit in the face with an egg during the 2017 election.]]
Macron was a member of the French Socialist Party (''Parti Socialiste'') in the past, in 2016 he founded the party [[En Marche!]] a leftist [[Liberalism|liberal]] party which supports, or is at least friendly towards, a federal [[European Union]], anti-[[Israel]] policies, and mass-immigration policies which continue after five years by President [[François Hollande|Hollande]].<ref>http://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2017/article/2017/01/24/emmanuel-macron-faire-de-la-destitution-d-assad-un-prealable-a-tout-a-ete-une-erreur_5067903_4854003.html</ref>

Former [[United States]] President [[Barack Obama]] spoke with Macron, indicating his support for the candidate in the 2017 French presidential election.<ref>Starr, Penny (April 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/22/obama-gently-waded-back-politics-speaks-phone-left-leaning-presidential-candidate-macron/ Obama ‘Gently Waded’ Back into Politics: Spoke on Phone with Left-Leaning Presidential Candidate Macron]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> After the first round, Obama explicitly endorsed Macron's candidacy.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endorses-macron-in-french-presidential-race.html Obama endorses Macron in French presidential race]. ''Fox News''. May 4, 2017. Retrieved May 4, 2017.</ref> By contrast, incumbent U.S. President [[Donald Trump]] called his opponent, the [[euroskeptic]] [[Marine Le Pen]], the strongest of the presidential candidates, particularly on borders and security;<ref>Multiple references:
*Tomlinson, Chris (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/21/trump-touts-marine-le-pen-strongest-candidate-french-race/ Trump Touts Le Pen As ‘Strongest’ Candidate in French Presidential Race]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 21, 2017.
However, after the election, President Trump told Macron that "you were my guy":
*[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-macron-campaign-idUSKBN18L2IY 'You were my guy,' Trump told Macron, French official says]. ''Reuters''. May 25, 2017. Retrieved May 25, 2017.
*Manchester, Julia (May 25, 2017). [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/335226-trump-to-macron-you-were-my-guy Trump to France's newly elected Macron: 'You were my guy']. ''The Hill''. Retrieved May 26, 2017.</ref> and British politician and radio talk show host [[Nigel Farage]] endorsed Le Pen.<ref>Kassam, Raheem (May 3, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/03/farage-breaks-cover-french-election-want-see-le-pen-win/ Farage Breaks Cover on French Election: ‘I Want to See Le Pen Win’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 4, 2017.</ref>

During the last days of the campaign, Macron stated that terrorism would be "part of our daily lives for the years to come."<ref>Montgomery, Jack (April 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/21/macron-terrorism-part-daily-lives-years-paris-shooting/ French Presidential Favourite Macron: Terrorism ‘Part of Our Daily Lives for Years to Come’ After Paris Shooting]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref> He voiced opposition to arresting and deporting the known radical Islamists in France due to "intelligence" purposes.<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (April 22, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/22/macron-arresting-deporting-terror-suspects/ Macron Against Arresting and Deporting Radical Islamists]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 22, 2017.</ref>

Macron won first place in the first round of the election, advancing to the runoff along with Le Pen.<ref>Berton, Elena (April 23, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/23/emmanuel-macron-marine-le-pen-in-runoff-for-french/ French voters reject establishment, send Macron and Le Pen to presidential runoff]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 24, 2017.</ref>

During the election runoff, a socially conservative group which promotes [[family values]], Manif pour Tous ("Protest for everyone"), strongly urged voters not to vote for Macron due to his extreme socially leftist and anti-family policies.<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (April 27, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/04/27/french-conservative-pro-family-group-macron-anti-family/ French Conservative Pro-Traditional Marriage Group Calls Macron ‘Anti-Family’ Candidate]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 28, 2017.</ref>

The media was desperate to influence the election outcome and framed Macron in a flattering light. They called Macron an independent centrist.<ref>[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4437156/Leading-candidates-cast-votes-French-election.html Outsiders Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen sweep to victory as France Dailymail.uk]</ref> Yet he is a left-wing [[liberal]] (by US standards) who openly and strongly supports [[globalism]], extreme European integration and the EU, the politically socialist status quo, and left-wing former U.S. President Barack Obama. Macron is not much different from the current French president Hollande on social issues although on economic issues he is more pragmatic. Critics condider him a globalist toady.

In April 2017, Macron refused to communicate and denied press access to the Russian state channel [[RT]], which his campaign accused of spreading [[fake news]] and disinformation.<ref>[http://www.france24.com/en/20170429-macron-campaign-drops-accreditation-kremlin-backed-media French presidential hopeful Macron bans Russian-state media from campaign trail]. ''France 24''. April 29, 2017. Retrieved May 1, 2017.</ref><ref>https://www.rt.com/news/386538-macron-rt-accreditation-requests</ref> This measure is comparable to President Trump's decision to refuse several liberal media outlets, such as [[CNN]], from his press meetings, where there was much criticism about this "press ban" as opposed to the little criticism over Macron's actions, which exposes the further [[Liberal hypocrisy|hypocrisy by liberals]].<ref>https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/24/media-blocked-white-house-briefing-sean-spicer</ref>

In a speech later in the campaign, Macron called the Le Pen voters/supporters "hateful cowards", "anti-France" and "true enemies", displaying his [[liberal values]].<ref name="DeplorableMoment">https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/04/macrons-deplorables-moment/</ref> This was seen as similar to Hillary Clinton's "deplorable" statement.<ref name="DeplorableMoment"/>

About nine gigabytes of data of emails from the campaign of French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron were posted online<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/news/macron-blasts-huge-hacking-attack-just-before-french-vote/ Macron Blasts Huge Hacking Attack Just Before French Vote]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 5, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/05/as-bitter-french-campaign-ends-macrons-team-hit-by-hack.html As bitter French campaign ends, Macron's team hit by hack]. ''Fox News''. May 5, 2017. Retrieved May 5, 2017.</ref> by a user called EMLEAKS to Pastebin on Friday the fifth of May. The En Marche! Movement has been the victim of a massive and coordinated hack this evening which has given rise to the diffusion on social media of various internal information." the statement said.<ref>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-election-macron-leaks-idUSKBN1812AZ</ref>

==French president==
Macron's first phone call as president-elect was to [[Angela Merkel]].<ref>Montgomery, Jack (May 8, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/08/merkel-praises-macron-for-championing-a-united-europe-open-to-the-world-in-first-call-as-president/ Macron’s First Phone Call as French President-Elect Is to Chancellor Merkel]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 8, 2017.</ref> He assumed office on May 14, 2017,<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/14/france-inaugurates-emmanuel-macron-as-new-president.html France inaugurates Emmanuel Macron as new president]. ''Fox News''. May 14, 2017. Retrieved May 14, 2017.</ref> and immediately set to lobbying additional EU centralization.<ref>Edmunds, Donna Rachel (May 14, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/05/14/macron-spend-first-day-presidency-begging-germany-closer-european-integration/ Macron to Lobby Germany for Closer EU Integration on First Day as President]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 14, 2017.</ref> Despite inviting U.S. climate scientists to move to France during the campaign, none had accepted his request by his early presidency.<ref>Richardson, Valerie (May 16, 2017). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/16/no-takers-yet-on-french-president-macrons-plea-for/ No takers yet on French President Macron’s plea for climate scientists to move to France]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved May 16, 2017.</ref> He received criticism for attempting to control media coverage over his administration,<ref>Corbet, Sylvie (May 18, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/05/18/frances-macron-holds-1st-cabinet-meeting-half-are-women.html French president talks to Putin, faces media troubles]. ''Fox News'' (from the ''Associated Press''). Retrieved May 18, 2017.</ref> and by 2018, his proposed reforms had stalled and his support had deeply fallen.<ref>Berton, Elena (September 11, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/11/emmanuel-macron-pro-business-reforms-france-stall/ 'Resistant to change': France's Macron sees pro-business reforms stall, popular support collapse]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved September 12, 2018.</ref>

Macron, a [[liberal elite]], chose an authoritarian and elitist governing style, and his administration's officials stated he would not hold question-answer press conferences because his thinking was too "complex" for journalists to understand.<ref>Montgomery, Jack (July 4, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/04/macron-announces-govern-like-jupiter-roman-king-gods/ Emmanuel Bonaparte: Macron Declares He Will Govern Like a Roman God]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 4, 2017.</ref> He has been criticized for having an arrogant personality.<ref>Vinocur, Nicholas (September 20, 2017). [https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macrons-arrogance-problem/ Emmanuel Macron’s arrogance problem]. ''Politico''. Retrieved September 20, 2017.</ref> In his first three months in office, Macron spent €26,000 (around $30,000) in makup-related expenses.<ref>Giaritelli, Anna (August 24, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/french-president-emmanuel-macron-spent-30000-on-makeup-related-expenses/article/2632522 French President Emmanuel Macron spent $30,000 on makeup-related expenses]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved August 24, 2017.</ref><ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/08/25/frances-macron-spends-24000-on-makeup-in-three-months/ France’s Macron Spends £24,000 on Makeup in Three Months]. ''Breitbart News''. August 25, 2017. Retrieved August 25, 2017.</ref><ref>Brown, Benjamin (August 24, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/08/24/french-president-macrons-make-up-expenses-draw-scrutiny.html French President Macron's make-up expenses draw scrutiny]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved August 25, 2017.</ref> In July 2018, he came under criticism for spending hundreds of thousands of euros of taxpayer money on lavish expenses, such as a swimming pool and replacing tableware with individually-decorated dishes.<ref>Young, Zachary (July 9, 2018). [https://www.politico.eu/article/france-versailles-king-emmanuel-macron-pledges-expenses-spending-humility-amid-outcry-over-pool-bespoke-crockery/ King Macron pledges humility after pool scandal]. ''Politico''. Retrieved July 9, 2018.</ref>

Rather than contemplate France's and Europe's historically low birth rates and population loss, Macron (who himself has no children) criticized Africans for having "seven or eight children per woman", which he said explains the continent's poor condition.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (July 11, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/11/french-pm-emmanuel-macron-deemed-racist-for-dissing-african-fertility/ French PM Emmanuel Macron Deemed ‘Racist’ for Dissing African Fertility]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 11, 2017.</ref> In August 2018, he criticized his own country as being "Gauls who are resistant to change."<ref name="DaneFrenchman">Multiple references:
*Duke, Selwyn (September 2, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/29937-giddy-globalists-france-s-macron-says-true-dane-true-frenchman-does-not-exist Giddy Globalists: France’s Macron Says True Dane, True Frenchman “Does Not Exist”]. ''The New American''. Retrieved September 2, 2018.
*Hale, Virginia (August 30, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/30/macron-denmark-true-dane-frenchman/ Macron Tells Denmark ‘No Such Thing as a True Dane, True Frenchman’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 30, 2018.
*[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-france-macron-gauls/macron-affirms-love-for-france-after-resistant-gauls-aside-idUSKCN1LF1D9 Macron affirms love for France after 'resistant Gauls' aside]. ''Reuters''. August 30, 2018. Retrieved August 30, 2018.</ref> By 2019, patriotic and anti-establishment forces had forced Macron to scale back on his agenda,<ref>Corbet, Sylvie; Charlton, Angela (May 19, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/may/19/emmanuel-macron-forced-curb-ambitions-europe/ Populists, nationalists force Macron to curb ambitions for Europe]. ''The Washington Times'' (from the ''Associated Press''). Retrieved May 20, 2019.</ref> and Macron suffered a further embarrassment when the patriotic [[National Rally (France)|National Rally]] defeated his party in the 2019 European Parliament elections.<ref>Multiple references:
*Tomlinson, Chris (May 26, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/05/26/le-pen-triumphs-over-macron-in-eu-election-exit-poll/ Le Pen Triumphs Over Macron in EU Election Exit Poll, Calls for Fresh National Elections]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 27, 2019.
*Miles, Frank (May 26, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/marine-le-pen-national-rally-european-parliament-elections-green-germany Le Pen, Farage parties win elections for European Parliament in France and UK, Greens surge in Germany: polls]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 27, 2019.
*Fouquet, Helene; Viscusi, Gregory (May 26, 2019). [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-26/macron-humbled-by-french-voters-as-exit-polls-show-le-pen-wins Macron Chastened as French Voters Hand Narrow Victory to Le Pen]. ''Bloomberg''. Retrieved May 27, 2019.
*Crisp, James (May 27, 2019). [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/26/frances-le-pen-declares-victory-macron-high-stakes-european/ Emmanuel Macron embarrassed by Marine Le Pen in elections but emerges as EU kingmaker]. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved May 27, 2019.
*Tomlinson, Chris (May 30, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/05/30/majority-french-call-eu-electio-personal-failure-macron/ Majority of French Call EU Election a Personal Failure for Macron]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 30, 2019.</ref>

Police suicide rates increased significantly under Macron's presidency.<ref>Ganley, Elaine (August 18, 2019). [https://www.apnews.com/aa2ac2c871a349ecbdb98313b644634b French police suicide rate climbs, French govt is flummoxed]. ''Associated Press''. Retrieved August 18, 2019.</ref>

Macron pushed through some economic reforms liberalizing France's economy.<ref>Corbet, Sylvie (November 1, 2019). [https://apnews.com/09cd993d2f4349a8b1f04f44b59962df France cuts jobless benefits as part of Macron reforms plan]. ''Associated Press''. Retrieved November 1, 2019.</ref> His pension reform efforts encountered strong opposition from unions.<ref>Multiple references:
*Phillips, Morgan (December 11, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/france-raises-retirement-age-fairer-pension-plan-protests France raises retirement age, offers concessions for 'fairer' system as pension-reform protests drag on]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
*Thomas, Leigh (December 5, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests-pensions-explainer/explainer-whats-at-stake-in-macrons-reform-of-frances-cherished-pensions-idUSKBN1Y915L Explainer: What's at stake in Macron's reform of France's cherished pensions?] ''Reuters''. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
*Corbet, Sylvie (December 5, 2019). [https://apnews.com/21a026a9b9bb4655b66713a57a51e868 A look at France’s heated debate over pensions]. ''Associated Press''. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
*Achoui-Lesage, Nadine; Charlton, Angela (December 17, 2019). [https://apnews.com/6e8881cfd9882fdfe90e50999c4bb342 No school, no trains, no Eiffel Tower: France on strike]. ''Associated Press''. Retrieved December 17, 2019.
*Lough, Richard; Belot, Jean-Michel (December 17, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-pensions-protests/strikes-protests-as-french-unions-seek-momentum-to-halt-pension-reform-idUSKBN1YL0KN Strikes, protests as French unions seek momentum to halt pension reform]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved December 17, 2019.
*Bhatti, Jabeen (December 17, 2019). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/17/paris-strikes-pressure-emmanuel-macron-welfare-ref/ Eiffel Tower 'closed': Strikes bring Paris to a standstill]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved December 17, 2019.</ref>

===Abortion and other social issues===
Macron praised a May 2018 referendum in [[Ireland]] that legalized [[abortion]]s in the country, calling it "an essential symbol for women’s freedom."<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/05/27/childless-emmanuel-macron-theresa-may-celebrate-pro-abortion-vote-in-ireland/ Childless Emmanuel Macron, Theresa May Celebrate Pro-Abortion Vote in Ireland]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 27, 2018.</ref><ref>[https://apnews.com/4874e725a3b64f029c08b7904ff5b34a The Latest: Macron: Ireland makes history with abortion vote]. ''Associated Press''. May 26, 2018. Retrieved May 27, 2018.</ref>

In September 2018, Macron falsely claimed that it's impossible to find a "perfectly educated" woman with "seven, eight, nine children," despite many examples to the contrary.<ref>Risdon, James (October 17, 2018). [https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/moms-with-phds-to-french-president-were-perfectly-educated-and-have-large-f Moms with PhDs to French President: We’re ‘perfectly educated’ and have large families]. ''LifeSiteNews''. Retrieved October 19, 2018.</ref>

The French parliament, under Macron's party, voted to restrict [[parental rights]] protected under [[Napoleon]] by symbolically banning [[spanking]].<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-children-punishment/overturning-napoleon-era-rights-france-bans-smacking-kids-idUSKCN1NZ1GS Overturning Napoleon-era rights, France bans smacking kids]. ''Reuters''. November 30, 2018. Retrieved December 1, 2018.</ref> This was despite scientific evidence finding that spanking "is not associated with any more adverse outcomes in children than is any other type of corrective discipline" and that "spanking is one of the most effective disciplinary tactics" for children aged 2-6.<ref>[https://sites.oxy.edu/clint/learn/articles/ComparingChildOutcomesofPhysicalPunishmentandAlternativeDisciplinary.pdf]Larzelere and Kuhn (2007) Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative Disciplinary
Tactics: A Meta-Analysis</ref> The ban also goes against the Bible, which advises parents [[discipline]] their children by spanking them. (Proverbs 23:13)

===Environmental policies===
{{See also|Yellow vest movement}}
In attempting to adhere to the [[Paris climate agreement]], which Macron strongly supported, the Macron Administration stopped granting licenses for oil and gas exploration in France and its territories,<ref>Bamat, Joseph (June 23, 2017). [http://www.france24.com/en/20170623-france-stop-giving-oil-exploration-licences France to stop granting oil exploration licences]. ''France 24''. Retrieved July 7, 2017.</ref> and it set a goal of ending the sale of gasoline and diesel vehicles by 2040 in its effort to comply with the agreement's carbon reduction goals.<ref>Henry, Devin (July 6, 2017). [https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/340809-france-to-end-sales-of-gasoline-diesel-vehicles-by-2040 France to end sales of gasoline, diesel vehicles by 2040]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved July 6, 2017.</ref><ref>Samuel, Henry (July 6, 2017). [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-vehicles-2040/ France to 'ban all petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040']. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved July 7, 2017.</ref><ref>Chrisafis, Angelique; Vaughan, Adam (July 6, 2017). [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040]. ''The Guardian''. Retrieved July 9, 2017.</ref>

In an attack on U.S. President [[Donald Trump]]'s climate policies, Macron announced he would host a contest for American climate change scientists and award "Make Our Planet Great Again" grants to the winners.<ref>Multiple references:
*Hale, Virginia (December 11, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/12/11/macron-winners-anti-trump-competition/ France to Reward Anti-Trump U.S. Academics With ‘Make Our Planet Great Again’ Cash Grants]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
*Gonzales, Richard (December 11, 2017). [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/11/570036260/macron-awards-u-s-climate-scientists-grants-to-make-our-planet-great-again Macron Awards U.S. Climate Scientists Grants To 'Make Our Planet Great Again']. ''NPR''. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
*Samuel, Henry (December 11, 2017). [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/11/macron-announces-grants-make-planet-great-jibe-trump/ Macron announces grants to 'make our planet great again' in jibe at Trump]. ''The Telegraph''. Retrieved December 11, 2017.
*[http://p.dw.com/p/2pBHy France unveils winners of 'Make Our Planet Great Again' grants ahead of climate summit]. ''Deutsche Welle''. Retrieved December 11, 2017.</ref> By December 2017, 13 climate scientists accepted his offer.<ref>Delingpole, James (December 15, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/12/15/delingpole-lucky-for-some-13-u-s-climate-scientists-lured-to-macrons-france/ Delingpole: Lucky for Some, 13 U.S. Climate Scientists Lured to Macron’s France]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 16, 2017.</ref>

In November and December 2018, Macron's proposal to raise fuel taxes – which he proposed to help end fossil fuel consumption in France – was met with [[Yellow vest movement|heavy protests in Paris]]<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/24/pictures-yellow-jackets-clash-police-french-protest-macrons-fuel-tax-hikes/ PICTURES: ‘Yellow Jackets’ Clash With Police as French Protest Macron’s Fuel Tax Hikes]. ''Breitbart News''. November 24, 2018. Retrieved November 25, 2018.
*Caplan, Joshua (November 24, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/24/macron-france-in-moral-crisis-as-protesters-demand-resignation-over-fuel-taxes/ Macron Admits France in ‘Moral Crisis’ as Protesters Demand Resignation Over Fuel Tax]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 25, 2018.
*Montgomery, Jack (December 1, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/01/macron-on-the-brink-water-cannon-tear-gas-and-stun-grenades-as-yellow-jackets-storm-security-cordons/ Macron on the Brink: Water Cannon, Tear Gas, and Stun Grenades as ‘Yellow Jackets’ Storm Security Cordons]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
*Mikelionis, Lukas (December 1, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/angry-french-protesters-turn-violent-for-third-straight-weekend-at-least-107-arrested Angry French protesters turn violent for third straight weekend, at least 107 arrested]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 1, 2018.
*Tomlinson, Chris (December 2, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/02/paris-erupts-into-flames-violence-insurrection-in-third-week-of-yellow-jacket-protests/ Paris in Flames: Violence, ‘Insurrection’ in Third Week of Yellow Jacket Protests]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 2, 2018.
*Bhatti, Jabeen; Dyer, John (December 3, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/3/yellow-jackets-france-protest-threatens-macron/ Deadly Paris protest becomes expression of French discontent, threatens to upend political system]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved December 3, 2018.
See also:
*Caplan, Joshua (November 24, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/24/paris-protests-macron-ally-worries-crisis-runs-deeper-than-gas-prices/ Paris Protests: Macron Ally Worries ‘Crisis’ Runs Deeper than Gas Prices]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 25, 2018.
*Caplan, Joshua (November 24, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/24/expert-yellow-jacket-protest-is-populist-style-revolt-against-french-elite/ Expert: ‘Yellow Jacket’ Protest Is ‘Populist’-Style Revolt Against French Elite]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 25, 2018.
*Murphy, James (December 3, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/30802-no-easy-answers-in-france-as-chaos-and-protests-spread No Easy Answers in France as Chaos and Protests Spread]. ''The New American''. Retrieved December 3, 2018.</ref> which were overwhelmingly supported by the Franch public.<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (November 25, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/25/eight-in-ten-french-support-yellow-vest-protesters-to-shut-down-paris/ Eight in Ten French Support ‘Yellow Jacket’ Protesters to Shut Down Paris]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 25, 2018.</ref><ref>Tomlinson, Chris (December 4, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/04/despite-wave-violence-72-percent-french-still-support-yellow-vest-movement/ Significant Majority of French Support Anti-Macron Movement Despite Violent Protests]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 4, 2018.</ref> Though most protesters were peaceful, Macron implied that most were violent because of a small number of violent incidents.<ref>Friedman, Victoria (November 25, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/25/shame-anti-government-protesters-says-macron-france-revolts-green-fuel-tax/ ‘Shame on’ Anti-Government Protesters, Says Macron as France Revolts over Green Fuel Tax]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 25, 2018. See also:
*Friedman, Victoria (November 27, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/27/macron-fears-war-scenes-tarnish-france-global-image-brown-shirts-blamed-grassroots-protests/ Macron Fears ‘War Scenes’ Tarnish France’s Global Image, ‘Brown Shirts’ Blamed for Grassroots Protests]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 27, 2018.
*Murphy, James (November 27, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/30761-france-s-macron-laments-protests-while-selling-his-country-down-the-globalist-river France’s Macron Laments Protests While Selling His Country Down the Globalist River]. ''The New American''. Retrieved November 27, 2018.
The violent incidents reportedly came from left-wing protestors:
*Tomlinson, Chris (November 28, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/28/marion-marechal-attended-yellow-vest-paris-protest-blame-far-left-extremists-violence/ Marion Maréchal Attended Yellow Vest Paris Protest, Witnessed Far-Left Extremist Infiltration Violence]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 28, 2018.</ref> The protests were the worst since the [[May 1968 riots]], and Macron considered declaring a state of emergency.<ref>Multiple references:
*Friedman, Victoria (December 2, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/02/macron-considers-state-emergency-france-worst-civil-unrest-1968/ Macron Considers State of Emergency After France Experiences Worst Civil Unrest Since 1968]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 2, 2018.
*Lough, Richard; De Clercq, Geert (December 2, 2018). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests-cleanup/stunned-parisians-clean-up-posh-central-district-after-worst-riots-since-1968-idUSKBN1O10EQ Stunned Parisians clean up posh central district after worst riots since 1968]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved December 2, 2018.</ref> Eventually, Macron's government delayed the tax increase by six months,<ref>Murphy, James (December 5, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/30819-macron-blinks-in-face-off-with-yellow-vest-protesters Macron Blinks in Face-off With “Yellow Vest” Protesters]. ''The New American''. Retrieved December 5, 2018. See also:
*Friedman, Victoria (December 4, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/04/not-enough-yellow-vests-reject-temporary-suspension-fuel-tax-rises-france/ Not Enough: Yellow Vests to Reject Temporary Suspension of Fuel Tax Rises in France]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 5, 2018.</ref> and shortly afterward, his government announced it would permanently abandon the tax increase.<ref>Multiple references:
*Tomlinson, Chris (December 5, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/05/victory-macron-permanently-cancels-planned-fuel-tax-hike-after-yellow-vest-protests/ Victory: Macron Permanently Cancels Planned Fuel Tax Hike After Yellow Vest Protests]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 5, 2018.
*Chamberlain, Samuel (December 5, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/frances-macron-scraps-fuel-tax-rise-amid-fears-of-more-protests-violence France's Macron scraps fuel tax rise amid fears of more protests, violence]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved December 5, 2018.
*Corbet, Sylvie; Petrequin, Samuel; Charlton, Angela (December 5, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/5/yellow-vests-force-emmanuel-macron-abandon-france-/ 'Yellow vests' force Macron to abandon fuel tax hike: 'If not there will be chaos']. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved December 5, 2018.
*Rose, Michel; Vey, Jean-Baptiste (December 5, 2018). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests-tax/france-drops-fuel-tax-hike-as-yellow-vest-anger-persists-idUSKBN1O40PQ France drops fuel tax hike as 'yellow vest' anger persists]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved December 5, 2018.</ref> Later, however, Macron lashed out at the protestors, claiming they were a "hateful crowd."<ref>Lane, Oliver JJ (January 1, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/01/unapologetic-after-bruising-year-macron-slams-yellow-vests-as-a-hateful-crowd/ Unapologetic After Bruising Year, Macron Slams Yellow Vests as a ‘Hateful Crowd’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 1, 2019.</ref>

===Free speech and political correctness===
Macron has worked to restrict [[free speech]] as president.<ref>Turley, Jonathan (July 6, 2019). [https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/451813-france-has-turned-into-one-of-the-worldwide-threats-to-free-speech France has turned into one of the worldwide threats to free speech]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved July 6, 2019.</ref> In November 2017, Macron proposed making "gender-based insults" illegal in France, a [[politically correct]] move that would lead to the further reduction of [[free speech]] rights in the country.<ref>Thomsen, Jacqueline (November 27, 2017). [https://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/362053-macron-to-introduce-fines-for-gender-based-insults-in-france Macron to introduce fines for 'gender-based insults' in France]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved November 27, 2017.</ref> In an April 2018 speech in front of the U.S. Congress, Macron called for media [[censorship]] in order to combat what he called "[[fake news]]."<ref>Turley, Jonathan (April 26, 2018). [https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/385009-embracing-macrons-war-against-fake-news-could-kill-free-speech Embracing Macron's war against 'fake news' could kill free speech]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved April 26, 2018.</ref> In July 2019, France's parliament approved a law to force social media companies to remove posts considered "hate speech" by the French government.<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/07/05/macrons-france-to-force-social-media-and-search-engines-to-censor-hate-speech/ Macron’s France to Force Social Media and Search Engines to Censor ‘Hate Speech’]. ''Breitbart News'' (from the ''Associated Press''). July 5, 2019. Retrieved July 5, 2019.
*[https://www.apnews.com/89dd24221b5043fd848ee974cc6d98fe France moves to make companies block hate speech online]. ''Associated Press''. July 4, 2019. Retrieved July 5, 2019.</ref>

===European Union===
Macron's EU policies have been described as "radical" by the [[mainstream media]].<ref>Baker, Luke (November 14, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-macron-geopolitics/on-russia-and-eu-enlargement-macron-pushes-a-radical-agenda-idUSKBN1XO2P9 On Russia and EU enlargement, Macron pushes a radical agenda]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved November 14, 2019.</ref> During his 2017 presidential campaign, Macron frequently flew the EU flag, and as president in 2017, France officially recognized the [[European Union]]'s flag and anthem.<ref>Eder, Florian (October 19, 2017). [https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-france-recognize-eu-flag-and-anthem/ Manu joins EU flag club]. ''Politico''. Retrieved October 19, 2017.</ref> In his new year address, Macron broke from tradition by addressing his "fellow citizens" of the EU rather than of just France, and he called on them to resist "nationalists and [Euro]sceptics" in 2018.<ref>Friedman, Victoria (January 3, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/01/03/frances-macron-tells-eu-fellow-citizens-resist-nationalists-eurosceptics-2018/ France’s Macron Tells EU ‘Fellow Citizens’ to Resist ‘Nationalists’, Eurosceptics in 2018]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 3, 2018.</ref> In February 2019, Macron's government passed a law requiring the EU flag, with the French flag, to be displayed in all classrooms.<ref>Multiple references:
*Friedman, Victoria (February 14, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/14/our-country-is-france-not-eu-eu-flag-compulsory-all-classrooms/ ‘Our Country Is France, Not the EU!‘: EU Flag Compulsory in All Classrooms]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved February 14, 2019.
*Friedman, Victoria (September 4, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/09/04/french-schools-fly-eu-flags-beside-tricolore-macron-reforms/ French Schools Forced to Fly EU Flags Beside Tricolore in Macron Reforms]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 4, 2019.</ref>

At a speech at the [[European Parliament]] in April 2018, Macron called for "European sovereignty", meaning increased European integration, and called for a purge of [[populism]].<ref>Hale, Virginia (April 18, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/18/macron-eu-enforce-liberalism-bloc/ Macron Calls for ‘European Sovereignty’, Urges EU to Purge ‘Populism’ Across the Continent]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 18, 2018.</ref> In June 2018, he referred to populism and [[Euroskepticism]] as a "leprosy" that must be fought, rather than criticizing his own government.<ref>Rose, Michel; Jones, Gavin (June 21, 2018). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-macron/frances-macron-urges-europeans-to-fight-leprosy-of-populism-idUSKBN1JH1NM France's Macron warns of populism "leprosy," Italy hits back]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved August 3, 2018.</ref><ref>Montgomery, Jack (June 22, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/06/22/macron-attacks-italy-warns-euroscepticism-spreading-like-leprosy/ Macron Attacks Italy’s New Govt, Warns Euroscepticism Is Spreading ‘Like Leprosy’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 22, 2018.</ref>

In a speech in August 2018, Macron again called for a European superstate, and stated that Europe should become "the model for a humanist refoundation of globalisation." He vowed to defeat nationalistic and patriotic forces and compared nationalists to "those who advocate hate speech," claiming that France is "an enemy of nationalism, of the politics of hatred," in addition to calling [[Viktor Orbán]]'s pro-Christianity speeches "anti-European."<ref>Multiple references:
*Hale, Virginia (August 29, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/29/macron-kill-nationalism-salvini-eu/ Globalist Macron Vows to Kill Nationalism, While Italy’s Salvini Declares EU ‘Filth’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 29, 2018.
*[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-eu-italy-hungary/frances-macron-says-he-is-main-opponent-to-anti-immigrants-orban-salvini-idUSKCN1LE1BE France's Macron says he is 'main opponent' to anti-immigrants Orban, Salvini]. ''Reuters''. August 29, 2018. Retrieved August 29, 2018.
*King, Esther (August 29, 2018). [https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-viktor-orban-matteo-salvini-enemies/ Macron: Orbán and Salvini are right to ‘see me as their main opponent’]. ''Politico''. Retrieved August 29, 2018.
*Williams, Thomas D. (August 29, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/29/macron-declares-war-on-salvini-orban-bloc-i-am-their-chief-adversary/ Macron Declares War on Salvini-Orban Bloc, ‘I Am Their Chief Adversary’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 29, 2018.</ref> He claimed that "the 'true Dane' [or true Frenchman] does not exist — he is a European."<ref name="DaneFrenchman"/> He has criticized the Visegrád nations for taking a pro-[[national sovereignty]] approach.<ref>Friedman, Victoria (October 26, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/10/26/globalist-macron-lectures-pro-sovereignty-visegrad-nations-to-fall-into-line-with-eu/ Globalist Macron Lectures Pro-Sovereignty Visegrad Nations to Fall into Line with EU]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved October 26, 2018.</ref> In a speech in November 2018, Macron called for "shar[ing] decision making on policies, migration policies, development policies, and share our fiscal resources," and he stated that "we must have common defence, turn the euro into an international currency with a budget, and create a European asylum office."<ref>Friedman, Victoria (November 18, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/18/macron-franco-german-couple-stop-world-descending-chaos-warns-against-nationalism/ Macron: ‘Franco-German Couple’ Will Stop World ‘Descending into Chaos’, Warns Against ‘Nationalism’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 18, 2018.</ref>

Macron has criticized European countries for purchasing American-British weaponry, ironically stating that "Europe won’t be strong unless it is truly sovereign and knows how to protect itself."<ref>Montgomery, Jack (October 28, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/10/28/400m-brexit-boost-macron-fumes-as-belgium-chooses-british-american-f-35s-over-euro-jets/ £400m Brexit Boost: Macron Fumes as Belgium Chooses British-American F-35s Over Euro Jets]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved October 28, 2018.</ref> He has called for a European army to, among other goals, protect the EU from the United States.<ref>Multiple references:
*Friedman, Victoria (November 6, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/06/macron-calls-real-european-army-protect-eu-us/ Macron Calls for ‘Real European Army’ to Protect EU from U.S.] ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
*Meichtry, Stacy; Norman, Laurence (November 6, 2018). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/frances-macron-calls-for-creating-a-european-army-1541528803 France’s Macron Calls for Creating a ‘European Army’]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved November 6, 2018.
*Dunne, Erin (November 7, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/frances-macron-tries-to-becomes-the-new-leader-of-europe-by-picking-a-fight-with-trump France's Macron tries to becomes the new leader of Europe by picking a fight with Trump]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved November 8, 2018.
See also
*Shaw, Adam (November 9, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rips-macron-after-landing-in-france-over-insulting-call-for-european-army Trump rips Macron after landing in France over ‘insulting’ call for European army]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 9, 2018.
*Moons, Michelle (November 9, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/09/trump-blasts-macrons-very-insulting-eu-army-call/ Trump Blasts Macron’s ‘Very Insulting’ EU Army Call]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 10, 2018.</ref> France led the push for a united EU army.<ref>[https://www.foxnews.com/world/germany-admits-eu-is-already-building-a-united-army-thanks-to-france Germany admits EU is already building a 'united' army - thanks to France]. ''Fox News'' (from ''The Sun''). January 11, 2019. Retrieved January 11, 2019. See also:
*Friedman, Victoria (January 12, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/12/eu-army-already-taking-shape-brags-german-defence-minister/ EU Army ‘Already Taking Shape’ Brags German Defence Minister]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 12, 2019.
*Zindulka, Kurt (November 14, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/11/14/eu-army-france-spearheads-13-new-military-projects-including-warships/ EU Army: France Spearheads 13 New Joint Military Projects, Including Joint European Warships]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 14, 2019.</ref>

Macron reportedly sought to punish Italy for pursuing right-wing populist policies, including pushing for sanctions behind the scenes.<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (November 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/17/italian-government-source-claims-macron-behind-eu-pressure-punish-italy/ Italian Govt Source Claims Macron Behind EU Pressure to ‘Punish’ Italy]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 17, 2018.</ref> He attacked the [[United Kingdom]] for voting for [[Brexit]].<ref>Hale, Virginia (January 17, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/17/macron-british-losers-brexit-lies/ Macron: British ‘Losers’ Were ‘Sold a Lie’ in Brexit Referendum]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 17, 2019.</ref><ref>Lane, Oliver JJ (March 5, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/03/05/macron-attacks-brexit-calls-european-federalism-pre-election-war-cry/ Macron Attacks Brexit, Calls for ‘European Federalism’ in Pre-Election War Cry]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 5, 2019.</ref>

In January 2019, Macron and Germany's Merkel prepared to sign a treaty further eroding the national sovereignty of both countries and tying them closer together.<ref>Friedman, Victoria (January 10, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/10/franco-german-axis-merkel-macron-sign-treaty-shared-defence-foreign-policy/ Merkel and Macron Pool Defence, Foreign Policy in Prototype ‘Sovereign Europe’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 10, 2019. See also:
*Friedman, Victoria (January 22, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/01/22/german-yellow-vests-protest-merkel-macron-sign-treaty-joint-defence/ Yellow Vests Protest Merkel-Macron Treaty on Integrating Defence, Foreign Policy]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved January 22, 2019.</ref> While some mainstream media sources painted France and Germany as standing far apart on EU issues, their positions were much closer than such analyses implied.<ref>Baker, Luke; Rinke, Andreas (November 29, 2019). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-france-relations/paris-and-berlin-at-odds-but-talk-of-rupture-overblown-idUSKBN1Y31Y0 Paris and Berlin at odds, but talk of rupture overblown]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved November 29, 2019.</ref>

===Immigration===
In April 2018, Macron stated that a "historic" and "unprecedented" age of mass migration was beginning in Europe, and that "Europe has its destiny bound with Africa."<ref>Hale, Virginia (April 17, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/17/macron-europe-migration-destiny-africa/ Macron: Europe Entering Age of ‘Unprecedented’ Mass Migration, ‘Shares Destiny’ with Africa]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 18, 2018.</ref> Also in April 2018, Macron stated that mass migration was "not linked" to the high crime rates for migrants in Europe and that Europeans actually were to blame for them.<ref>Hale, Virginia (May 1, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/05/01/macron-migrant-violence-terror-europe-fault-not-linked-mass-immigration/ Macron: Migrant Violence, Terror Is Europe’s Fault, ‘Not Linked’ to Mass Immigration]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved May 1, 2018.</ref> When the media leaked comments the French ambassador to Hungary, Eric Fournier, made defending Hungarian prime minister [[Viktor Orbán]]'s conservative immigration policies, Macron sharply rebuked him<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (July 1, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/07/01/french-ambassador-to-hungary-rejects-extremist-label-of-prime-minister-orban-in-leaked-note/ French Ambassador Praises Hungarian Prime Minister, Brands Muslims in France and Germany Anti-Semitic]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 1, 2018.</ref> and fired him shortly afterward.<ref>Friedman, Victoria (July 2, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/07/02/globalist-macron-dismisses-hungary-ambassador-praise-orban-migration-policy/ Globalist Macron Fires Hungary Ambassador for Praising Orban’s Immigration Policy]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 2, 2018. See also:
*Friedman, Victoria (July 6, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/07/06/hungary-trolls-macron-awarding-fired-french-ambassador-high-state-honour/ Hungary Trolls Macron by Awarding Fired French Ambassador State Honour]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 6, 2018.</ref>

Despite lecturing [[conservative]]s and other European countries on the importance of supporting mass migration, Macron himself turned away migrants at France's borders, as Italian Interior Minister [[Matteo Salvini]] pointed out.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (August 31, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/08/31/salvini-hypocrite-macron-should-either-shut-his-mouth-or-open-his-borders/ Salvini: ‘Hypocrite’ Macron Should Either Shut His Mouth or Open His Borders]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 1, 2018.</ref>

Under Macron, an average of three church attacks, including acts of vandalism, happened each day, many of which were caused by migrants.<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (March 30, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/03/30/macrons-france-average-of-three-church-attacks-per-day/ Macron’s France: Average of Three Church Attacks Per Day]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved March 31, 2019.</ref>

===Foreign policy===
Macron failed to stand up for [[the West|Western]] values as France's president,<ref>Rogan, Tom (November 12, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/macron-merkel-and-why-international-order-remains-the-american-preserve Macron, Merkel, and why international order remains the American preserve]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved November 12, 2018.</ref> he undermined the [[NATO]] alliance,<ref>Wirtz, Bill (November 18, 2019). [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/natos-real-enemy-not-trump-but-macron/ NATO’s Real Enemy: Not Trump But Macron]. ''The American Conservative''. Retrieved November 18, 2019.</ref> and he aligned France with totalitarian China.<ref>Rogan, Tom (November 6, 2019). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bowing-to-beijing-frances-macron-betrays-the-liberal-international-order Bowing to Beijing, France's Macron betrays the liberal international order]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved November 7, 2019.</ref> He also advocated for [[globalist]] policies.

At the 2017 [[United Nations]] meeting, Macron gave a speech directly opposed to U.S. President [[Donald Trump]]'s speech, with the latter supporting [[nationalist]] policies.<ref>Williams, Thomas D. (September 20, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/09/20/frances-macron-positions-himself-as-globalist-anti-trump-at-un-meeting/ France’s Macron Positions Himself as Globalist ‘Anti-Trump’ at UN Meeting]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 20, 2017.</ref> On April 25, 2018, Macron gave a speech to the U.S. Congress in which he again spoke out against Trump's nationalist, [[America First]] policies, as well as nationalism in general, favoring globalism and expressing a belief in the [[Idea of Progress]].<ref>Multiple references:
*Boylan, Dave (April 25, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/25/emmanuel-macron-tells-congress-keep-eyes-wide-open/ Macron tells Congress: Keep ‘eyes wide open’ to overcome dangers of terrorism, nationalism]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 25, 2018.
*Boylan. Dave (April 25, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/25/emmanuel-macron-of-france-challenges-donald-trumps/ Macron challenges Trump’s ‘America first’ policy in speech to Congress]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved April 25, 2018.
*Zengerle, Patricia; Pennetier, Marine (April 25, 2018). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-france/frances-macron-decries-nationalism-in-speech-to-u-s-congress-idUSKBN1HW23W Friends or not, France's Macron challenges Trump in Congress speech]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved April 25, 2018.
*Crowley, Michael; Nelson, Louis (April 25, 2018). [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/25/emmanuel-macron-addresses-congress-550677 Macron rebukes Trump with ‘Obama State of the Union address’]. ''Politico''. Retrieved April 25, 2018.
*Gehrke, Joel (April 25, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/macron-repudiates-major-themes-of-trumps-presidency Macron repudiates major themes of Trump's presidency]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 25, 2018.</ref> In that speech, Macron misattributed a famous phrase used by [[Ronald Reagan]] to [[Theodore Roosevelt]].<ref>Jashinsky, Emily (April 25, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/macrons-presidential-mix-up Macron's presidential mix-up]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved April 25, 2018.</ref> In March 2018 Macron called President Trump's decision to move the US embassy from [[Tel Aviv]] to [[Jerusalem]] an 'error'.<ref>Benari, Elad (March 8, 2018). [https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/242863 Macron: Trump's Jerusalem recognition was an 'error']. ''Israel National News''. Retrieved August 30, 2018.</ref> On May 31, 2018, Macron called steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by Trump "illegal."<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-macron/frances-macron-says-us-tariffs-are-illegal-and-a-mistake-idUSKCN1IW2NH France's Macron says U.S. tariffs are illegal and a mistake]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved May 31, 2018.</ref><ref>[http://time.com/5297934/emmanuel-macron-donald-trump-tariffs/ French President Macron Calls President Trump's Tariff Decision 'Illegal']. ''Time'' (from the ''Associated Press''). May 31, 2018. Retrieved May 31, 2018.</ref><ref>Deacon, Liam (June 1, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/06/01/eu-attacks-trumps-illegal-tariffs-takes-us-ttrade-court-threatens-trade-war/ EU, Macron Attack Trump’s ‘Illegal’ Tariffs, Take U.S. to Trade Court, Threaten Trade War]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 1, 2018.</ref> On September 25, 2018, Macron attacked nationalism at the UN General Assembly, criticizing President Trump's positions that he articulated shortly prior.<ref>Multiple references:
*Montgomery, Jack (September 26, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/09/26/france-vs-america-macron-puts-globalist-case-against-trump-un-speech/ France Vs America: Macron Puts Globalist Case Against Trump at UN, Hints at Anti-U.S. Trade Deal Boycott]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 26, 2018.
*Meichtry, Stacy (September 25, 2018). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/macron-denounces-rise-of-nationalism-as-crisis-for-world-order-1537897553 Macron Denounces Rise of Nationalism as Crisis For World Order]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved September 25, 2018.</ref> In a speech in front of world leaders on November 11, 2018, Macron again attacked nationalism and President Trump's America First policies, claiming that "nationalism is treason."<ref>Multiple references:
*Spiering, Charlie (November 11, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/11/french-president-emanuel-macron-nationalism-is-treason/ French President Emmanuel Macron: ‘Nationalism is Treason’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
*Re, Gregg (November 11, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-speaking-at-armistice-day-event-xx Trump, speaking at Armistice Day event outside Paris, honors fallen soldiers as Macron, Merkel take shots at him]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
*Anapol, Avery (November 11, 2018). [https://thehill.com/policy/international/416097-macron-during-armistice-day-remarks-nationalism-is-a-betrayal-of Macron calls nationalism a 'betrayal of patriotism' during Armistice Day remarks]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
*Barrón-López, Laura (November 11, 2018). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/french-president-emmanuel-macron-condemns-nationalism-with-trump-present French President Emmanuel Macron condemns 'nationalism' with Trump present]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
*Mass, Warren (November 13, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/item/30633-france-s-macron-berates-nationalism-the-foreign-policy-favored-by-trump France’s Macron Berates “Nationalism” — the Foreign Policy Favored by Trump]. ''The New American''. Retrieved November 13, 2018.
See also:
*Miller, S.A. (November 11, 2018). [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/11/donald-trump-ignores-emmanuel-macron-nationalism-d/ Trump takes high road after Macron 'nationalism' swipe, honors veterans]. ''The Washington Times''. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
*Griffiths, Brent D. (November 11, 2018). [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/11/graham-macron-france-trump-982955 Graham: Macron was ‘playing politics’ with WWI commemoration speech]. ''Politico''. Retrieved November 11, 2018.
*Virgil (November 11, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/11/11/virgil-frances-macron-attacks-americas-trump-and-americans-help-pay-for-it/ Virgil: France’s Macron Attacks America’s Trump, and Americans Help Pay For It]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
*Byas, Steve (November 11, 2018). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/30612-macron-is-wrong-nationalism-was-not-the-cause-of-world-war-i Macron is Wrong: Nationalism Was Not the Cause of World War I]. ''The New American''. Retrieved November 12, 2018.
*Ryun, Ned (November 15, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-vs-macron-what-the-french-president-doesnt-understand-about-nationalism Trump vs. Macron: What the French president doesn't understand about nationalism]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved November 15, 2018.</ref> Days after Macron's public comments, 200,000 French protesters took to the streets in anti-Macron protests. 1 person was killed, and 227 arrested.<ref>https://youtu.be/8yNzanq2Hug</ref>

When France conducted airstrikes on [[Syria]] along with the UK and the U.S. in April 2018, Macron stated they were "for the honor of the international community."<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/04/18/macron-syria-strikes-honor-international-community/ Macron: Syria Strikes Were ‘For Honor of International Community’]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 18, 2018.</ref>

In November 2018, Macron criticized President Trump, claiming that his policies were "done to the detriment of his allies."<ref>Friedman, Victoria (November 30, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/30/macron-attacks-president-trumps-national-policies-detrimental-global-allies/ Macron Attacks President Trump’s America First Policies as ‘Detrimental’ to Global Allies]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 30, 2018.</ref> He threatened to veto an EU–Mercosur trade deal if conservative Brazilian President-elect [[Jair Bolsonaro]] withdrew from the Paris agreement.<ref>Friedman, Victoria (November 30, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/30/globalist-macron-threatens-tropical-trump-over-climate-change-eu-mercosur/ Macron Threatens to Veto EU-Mercosur Trade Deal If Brazil’s ‘Tropical Trump’ Pulls out of Climate Accord]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 30, 2018.</ref> At a D-Day event with other world leaders, Macron used it to promote a globalist and [[neocon]] ideology.<ref>Lane, Oliver JJ (June 6, 2019). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/06/06/frances-macron-uses-d-day-event-to/ France’s Macron Uses D-Day Speech to Lecture Trump on NATO, European Union]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved June 6, 2019.</ref><ref>Dallison, Paul (June 6, 2019). [https://www.politico.eu/article/macron-tells-trump-the-us-should-fight-for-the-freedom-of-others/ Macron tells Trump the US should fight ‘for the freedom of others’]. ''Politico''. Retrieved June 6, 2019.</ref> He meddled in other countries' affairs, stating in August 2019 that he wanted Brazil to get a new president rather than the conservative Bolsonaro.<ref>Momtaz, Rym (August 26, 2019). [https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-jair-bolsonaro-feud/ Macron says he hopes Brazil gets a new president]. ''Politico''. Retrieved August 26, 2019. See also:
*Trevisani, Paulo; Bisserbe, Noemie (August 27, 2019). [https://www.wsj.com/articles/brazils-bolsonaro-spurns-g-7-amazon-fire-aid-in-spat-with-macron-11566920646 Brazil’s Bolsonaro Spurns G-7 Amazon Fire Aid in Spat With Macron]. ''The Wall Street Journal''. Retrieved August 27, 2019.
*Rodrigo, Chris Mills (August 27, 2019). [https://thehill.com/policy/international/458958-brazils-bolsonaro-demands-apology-from-macron-before-discussing-amazon Brazil's Bolsonaro demands apology from Macron before discussing Amazon fire aid]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved August 27, 2019.
*Lowry, Rich (August 30, 2019). [https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/amazon-fires-g-7-summit-misinformed-action/ The Amazon Scam]. ''National Review''. Retrieved September 1, 2019.</ref> Macron also attacked [[Poland]] for not following his far-left environmentalist policies.<ref>Corbet, Sylvie; Scislowska, Monika (September 23, 2019). [https://www.apnews.com/851a13bb93694c44aca3b59797de3a0a Macron urges French climate protesters to target Poland]. ''Associated Press''. Retrieved September 23, 2019.</ref>

====Russia-Ukraine war====
[[File:Thirsty-Macron-3-1024x694.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Macron posing like Zelensky the trend setter during the Russia-Ukraine conflict.]]
{{See also|Russia-Ukraine war}}
During the 2022 manufactured [[Ukrainian]] crisis Macron said, "The geopolitical objective of Russia today is clearly not Ukraine, but to clarify the rules of cohabitation with NATO and the EU."

As the international media fawned over their latest [[social media]] star, the “Churchill in a T-shirt” and fellow alum of the WEF [[Young Global Leaders Forum]], President [[Volodymyr Zelensky]] of Ukraine, Macron called for immediate poses of him in a series of similarly scruffy press shots.

Thanks to social media adoration, Zelensky, the modern EU trendsetter, is making [[beatnik]] great again. There already was a run on vintage jeans, sneakers and T-shirts within [[Brussels]], as several NATO leaders dispatched their aides looking for the hot, new and modern authentic war look.<ref>https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/03/15/thirsty-macron-appears-jealous-of-international-media-fawning-over-zelenskyy/</ref>

===Trade===
French farmers strongly opposed EU trade agreements that Macron supported.<ref>[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests/french-farmers-damage-more-offices-of-macron-mps-over-trade-deals-idUSKCN1UY1UV French farmers damage more offices of Macron MPs over trade deals]. ''Reuters''. August 8, 2019. Retrieved August 8, 2019.</ref>

===Approval ratings===
Macron's approval ratings fell deeply in his first three months in office,<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/08/27/frances-macron-sees-popularity-fall-40-per-cent/ France’s Macron Drops 14 Poll Points, Popularity Falls to 40 Per Cent]. ''Breitbart News''. August 27, 2017. Retrieved August 27, 2017.</ref> and they continued to collapse.<ref>Shaw, Adam (October 13, 2018). [https://www.foxnews.com/world/macron-popularity-plummets-at-home-as-he-pushes-globalism-on-world-stage Macron popularity plummets at home as he pushes globalism on world stage]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved October 13, 2018.</ref> Most commentators attributed this to his authoritarian tendencies and aggressive media self-promotion.<ref>[https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/08/06/popularity-new-french-president-macron-collapses-less-three-months-vote/ Popularity of New French President Macron Collapses Less Than Three Months After Vote]. ''Breitbart News''. August 6, 2017. Retrieved August 6, 2017.</ref> By the first 100-day mark of his presidency, Macron's approval ratings were at 36%, 10% lower than his predecessor's was at the same point in his presidency.<ref>Friedman, Victoria (August 13, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/08/13/macron-36-per-cent-approval-rating-amongst-sceptical-french/ Macron at 36 Per Cent Approval Rating Amongst ‘Sceptical’ French]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 13, 2017.</ref> It was noted that Macron's approval rating fell even lower than U.S. President [[Donald Trump]],<ref>Adams, Becket (September 5, 2017). [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/emmanuel-macron-more-unpopular-in-france-than-trump-in-us/article/2633442 Emmanuel Macron more unpopular in France than Trump in US]. ''Washington Examiner''. Retrieved September 5, 2017.</ref><ref>Moody, John (August 9, 2017). [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/09/suddenly-less-popular-than-trump-frances-macron-gets-schooled.html Suddenly less popular than Trump, France's Macron gets schooled]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved September 5, 2017.</ref><ref>Hale, Virginia (September 6, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/09/06/msm-struggles-trump-beating-macron/ MSM Struggles to Come to Terms with Populist Trump Beating Globalist Macron in Poll Ratings]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved September 6, 2018.</ref> who the [[mainstream media]] noted had low poll numbers himself. By July 2018, Macron's approval rating had fallen to 32%.<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (July 26, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/07/26/president-macron-sinks-historic-polling-lows-bodyguard-scandal-rages/ President Macron Sinks to Historic Polling Lows as Bodyguard Scandal Rages]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved July 26, 2018.</ref> In September 2018, Macron's approval ratings fell below 20%.<ref>Basu, Zachary (September 16, 2018). [https://www.axios.com/emmanuel-macron-approval-rating-france-9a45288d-87d7-4aa4-bd0f-91c1feefc01f.html Emmanuel Macron's approval rating dips below 20%]. ''Axios''. Retrieved September 16, 2018.</ref> An Ifop poll in November 2018 reported that Macron's approval rating was at 25%,<ref>Multiple references:
*[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-politics-fuel-blockades/macrons-popularity-dips-as-french-fuel-tax-revolt-simmers-idUSKCN1NN0E1 Macron's popularity dips as French fuel tax revolt simmers]. ''Reuters''. November 18, 2018. Retrieved November 18, 2018.
*Samuels, Brett (November 18, 2018). [https://thehill.com/policy/international/417345-macrons-popularity-drops-to-25-percent-poll Macron’s popularity drops to 25 percent: poll]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved November 18, 2018.</ref> and a BVA poll later that month found Macron's approval ratings to be lower than Marine Le Pen, who he defeated in 2017.<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (November 26, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/26/macron-most-unpopular-french-president-ever-at-this-stage-of-presidential-term/ Macron: Globalist Poster Boy’s Polls Plunge to Historic Low, Le Pen Now More Popular]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 26, 2018.</ref> A poll conducted by Paris Match and Sud Radio found that Macron had only a 23% approval rating.<ref>Hale, Virginia (December 5, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/12/05/macron-approval-hits-new-low/ Macron Hits a New Low, December Approval Figures Worst of Presidency]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved December 5, 2018.</ref>

An Ifop-Fiducial poll taken in April 2018 found that 58% of French voters were unhappy with Macron, and 73% described him as authoritarian.<ref>Hale, Virginia (April 19, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/19/france-voters-unhappy-macron/ France: Majority ‘Unhappy’ with Globalist President Macron]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved April 25, 2018.</ref> In response to his low approval ratings, Macron attacked conservative populist-nationalism.<ref>Tomlinson, Chris (November 2, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2018/11/02/as-macrons-popularity-tumbles-to-all-time-low-french-leader-hits-out-at-europes-1930s-politics/ As Macron’s Popularity Tumbles To All Time Low, French Leader Hits Out at Europe’s ‘1930s’ Politics]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved November 3, 2018.</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=35em}}

{{FrancePresidents}}
{{Globalism}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Macron, Emmanuel}}
[[Category:Current Heads of State]]
[[Category:French Politicians]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Abortion Advocates]]
[[Category:Business People]]
[[Category:Globalists]]
[[Category:Soros Mercenaries]]
[[Category:Agnostics]]
[[Category:Former Christians]]
[[Category:Pro Open Borders]]

Humberto Castelo Branco

2018-02-03T15:41:45Z

Sunda62: In Brazil, he is NEVER called "Branco" (white), but always "Castelo Branco" (white castle)

'''Humberto Castelo Branco''' (1897-1967) was the Conservative president of [[Brazil]] from 1964 to 1967.

==Biography==
During the [[Second World War]] Castelo Branco fought in [[Italy]] against the [[Nazi|Germans]].

Castelo Branco took power on March 31, 1964, after he removed unpopular president [[João Goulart]]. On April 11, 1964 Castelo Branco was officially declared as interim-president. He resigned in July 1967.<ref>http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/c/castelo_humberto.htm</ref>

Castelo Branco died in an plane crash on July 18, 1967.<ref>[[O Globo]] memory site: http://acervo.oglobo.globo.com/em-destaque/castelo-branco-primeiro-presidente-apos-golpe-de-64-morreu-em-desastre-aereo-21565406</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Right-wing dictatorship]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Heads of State]]
[[Category:Brazil]]

Lula da Silva

2018-02-03T15:29:36Z

Sunda62: After appeal, sentenced to 12 years in jail. "Lula preso amanhã", tomorrow never comes

[[File:Lula.jpg|right|150px]]

'''Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva''' (Garanhuns, Pernambuco State, 1945 - ) a socialist politician was the 35th President of [[Brazil]]. He was succeeded by [[Dilma Rousseff]] on January 1, 2011. In 1980, he founded with a group of leaders the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) or Workers' Party, a left-wing party. Lula ran for President of Brazil three times unsuccessfully.

<blockquote>
On 27th October 2002, at the age of 57, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was elected President of the Federative Republic of Brazil with almost 53 million votes. [http://www.v-brazil.com/government/executive-branch/lula.html]
</blockquote>

During his first term Lula da Silva oversaw a growing economy and a reduction in the poverty rate. [http://www.answers.com/topic/luis-inacio-lula-da-silva]

Lula is referred by some critics as uneducated, ignorant, arrogant, insane and a representative of poor Brazilians. His political persona is seen as authoritarian, extravagant, and impulsive.

Despite having no education, it is said that Lula is driven by a group Stalinist of the Worker's Party.

Friend of [[Hugo Chavez]], [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], he is regarded as working around the intense polarization between left and right; ''"Lula's heart may beat to the left, but his head tells him foreign investment is essential for Brazil to grow," noted Steve Kingstone of the BBC.'' [http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Ka-M/Lula-da-Silva-Luiz-In-cio.html]

In 2016, when he was accused of bribery, he claimed that there was nobody in Brazil more honest than him.<ref>[http://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/fausto-macedo/nao-tem-uma-viva-alma-mais-honesta-do-que-eu-afirma-lula/ In Portuguese: "Não existe viva alma mais honesta do que eu"]</ref> Lula has been labelled by those involved in "[[Petrolão]]" (the corruption scandal of [[Petrobras]]) as "chefe da quadrilha" (head of the gang of thieves).<ref>http://www.ilisp.org/noticias/delcidio-confirma-lula-e-o-chefe-da-quadrilha-e-as-campanhas-de-dilma-foram-ilegais/</ref> In 2017, Lula was sentenced to nine years in jail by [[Sérgio Moro]], based
on the accusation of receiving and hiding an apartment as bribe. He wasn't arrested, since, by brazilian law, he can appeal in liberty.
<ref>http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-40488914</ref><ref>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-12/brazil-s-lula-sentenced-to-prison-on-corruption-charges</ref> On 2018-01-24, TRF-4 (''Tribunal Regional Federal 4'', brazilian's [[U.S. courts of appeal|court of appeal]]) confirmed by unanymous decision all accusations against Lula, and raised his period to 12 years and one month. He is still
appealing in liberty.<ref>Official TRF-4 site: https://www2.trf4.jus.br/trf4/controlador.php?acao=noticia_visualizar&id_noticia=13418</ref><ref>Veja: https://veja.abril.com.br/politica/julgamento-de-lula-no-trf4-acompanhe-ao-vivo/</ref><ref>Brazilian government official news site: http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/politica/noticia/2018-01/desembargadores-do-trf4-mantem-condenacao-de-lula-no-caso-triplex</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.v-brazil.com/government/executive-branch/lula.html President Lula - biography.]
*[http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Ka-M/Lula-da-Silva-Luiz-In-cio.html Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Da Silva, Lula}}
[[Category:Politicians]]

Roman catholic

2018-02-03T15:04:44Z

Sunda62: Redirected page to Roman Catholic Church

#REDIRECT [[Roman Catholic Church]]

J.R.R. Tolkien

2018-02-03T15:03:23Z

Sunda62: What? An article about Tolkien that does not mention that he was a devout roman catholic???

[[Image:Jrrt 1972 pipe.jpg|right|thumb|J. R. R. Tolkien in 1972, in his study at Merton Street.]]

'''John Ronald Reuel Tolkien''' (3 January 1892 Bloemfontein, [[Orange Free State]] – 2 September 1973) was an English writer, [[philology|philologist]] and university professor, best known as the author of several influential [[fantasy]] books such as ''[[The Hobbit]]'' and ''[[The Lord of the Rings]]''. He also worked on translating the [[Bible]], particularly the [[Book of Jonah]] for the [[Jerusalem Bible]].

He had a lifelong interest in and love of language, and also created [[Tolkien's languages|several constructed languages]]. Tolkien also created the [[Middle-earth]] legendarium, a fantasy world with a detailed geography, history, and inhabited by Men, [[Elf (Middle-earth)|Elves]], [[Dwarves (Middle-earth)|Dwarves]], and [[Hobbit]]s.<ref>''The Hobbit'', first published by George Allen & Unwin Ltd. of London, on 21 September 1937.</ref>

Tolkien was a [[roman catholic]].<ref>Tolkien wrote to Deborah Webster, 25 Oct 1958: ''I am a Christian (which can be deduced from my stories), and in fact a Roman Catholic.'', ''[[The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien]]'', Letter 213</ref><ref>In an interview to [[Dennis Gerrolt]], broadcast in January 1971 on the BBC Radio 4 programme ''Now Read On ...'', Tolkien was asked if he was a theist, to which he replied ''I'm a Roman Catholic. Devout Roman Catholic.''</ref>

== Early life ==
Tolkien was born in [[Bloemfontein]], [[South Africa]], to British parents, Arthur Reuel Tolkien and the former Miss Mabel Suffield. At the age of three he returned to England with his mother and younger brother, Hilary Arthur Reuel. His father died in Africa before he could rejoin them. Tolkien spent his early childhood in Sarehole, a [[Worcestershire]] village, which later influenced him in the creation of the [[Shire (Middle-earth)|Shire]]. Now living in [[Birmingham]], Mabel Tolkien and her children were received into the [[Roman Catholic Church]] in 1900. This enraged staunch [[Protestant]]s on both sides of the family and Mabel Tolkien subsequently left without any financial support. She died in 1904 of [[diabetes]], leaving her sons in the care of Father Francis Morgan, a priest of the [[Oratorian Order]].

==Marriage and [[World War I]]==
Tolkien grew up in the industrialized Edgbaston district of Birmingham and attended King Edward's School. The polluted sprawl of Birmingham is believed to have influenced his creation of [[Mordor]]. In 1916 Tolkien married Edith Mary Bratt, with whom he had four children: John, Michael, Christopher (who served with the RAF in Africa during WWII), and Priscilla. In October of the same year he was sent to the Western Front to serve as a signals officer at the [[Battle of the Somme]]. After coming down with [[trench fever]], he was invalided home and spent the remainder of the war as an emaciated patient in various military hospitals. His [[affliction]] was almost certainly caused by the flea bites suffered in captured German trenches at Thiepval Ridge.

==Later life==
Tolkien became a professor of [[Old English language|Anglo-Saxon]] and English literature at the [[University of Oxford]] in 1925 and remained in the post until his retirement in 1959. After his death, the masses of his literary work he left behind were left in the care of his son Christopher Tolkien, who continues to organize and publish his father's writings.

==Friendships==
He and several other writers (among them [[C. S. Lewis]]) were members of a literary club called the [[Inklings]]. Tolkien and Lewis were very close friends, and Tolkien had a major role in Lewis's eventual conversion from [[Atheism]] to [[Christianity]].<ref>''Heroes of the Faith, C.S.Lewis'' by Sam Wellman, Barbour Publishing, Inc., 1997.</ref>

== Bibliography ==
*''[[The Hobbit]]'' (1937)
*''Leaf by Niggle'' (1945)
*''Farmer Giles of Ham'' (1949, a medieval fable)
*''[[The Lord of the Rings]]'', in three volumes:
**''[[The Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (1954)
**''[[The Two Towers]]'' (1955)
**''[[The Return of the King]]'' (1955)
*''Smith of Wootton Major'' (1967)
*''The Father Christmas Letters'' (1976)
*''[[The Silmarillion]]'' (1977)
*''Unfinished Tales of Númenor and Middle-earth'' (1980)
*''The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien'' (1981)
*''Mr. Bliss'' (1982)
*''The Monsters and the Critics'' (1983, a collection of essays)
*''The History of Middle-earth'' (1983–1996 in twelve volumes)
*''Roverandom'' (1998)
*''The Children of Húrin'' (2007)
*''The History of The Hobbit'' (2007, in two volumes)

== See also ==
*[[Tolkien's languages and scripts]]
*[[:Category:Middle-earth]]

==References==
{{reflist|spaltenzahl}}

==External links==
* [https://librivox.org/author/1536 Works by J. R. R. Tolkien - text and free audio] - [[LibriVox]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tolkien, John Ronald Reuel}}

[[Category:British Authors]]
[[Category:Religious People]]
[[Category:World War I]]
[[Category:Survivalist Fiction]]
[[Category:Dystopian Fiction]]
[[Category:Science Fiction Authors]]
[[Category:Science Fiction]]
[[Category:Christian Authors]]
[[Category:Christian Fiction]]
[[Category:Christians]]

Lula da Silva

2017-11-22T23:48:38Z

Sunda62: Lula "Nine Fingers" sentenced to Nine Years in Jail

[[File:Lula.jpg|right|150px]]

'''Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva''' (Garanhuns, Pernambuco State, 1945 - ) a socialist politician was the 35th President of [[Brazil]]. He was succeeded by [[Dilma Rousseff]] on January 1, 2011. In 1980, he founded with a group of leaders the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) or Workers' Party, a left-wing party. Lula ran for President of Brazil three times unsuccessfully.

<blockquote>
On 27th October 2002, at the age of 57, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was elected President of the Federative Republic of Brazil with almost 53 million votes. [http://www.v-brazil.com/government/executive-branch/lula.html]
</blockquote>

During his first term Lula da Silva oversaw a growing economy and a reduction in the poverty rate. [http://www.answers.com/topic/luis-inacio-lula-da-silva]

Lula is referred by some critics as uneducated, ignorant, arrogant, insane and a representative of poor Brazilians. His political persona is seen as authoritarian, extravagant, and impulsive.

Despite having no education, it is said that Lula is driven by a group Stalinist of the Worker's Party.

Friend of [[Hugo Chavez]], [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]], he is regarded as working around the intense polarization between left and right; ''"Lula's heart may beat to the left, but his head tells him foreign investment is essential for Brazil to grow," noted Steve Kingstone of the BBC.'' [http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Ka-M/Lula-da-Silva-Luiz-In-cio.html]

In 2016, when he was accused of bribery, he claimed that there was nobody in Brazil more honest than him.<ref>[http://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/fausto-macedo/nao-tem-uma-viva-alma-mais-honesta-do-que-eu-afirma-lula/ In Portuguese: "Não existe viva alma mais honesta do que eu"]</ref> Lula has been labelled by those involved in "[[Petrolão]]" (the corruption scandal of [[Petrobras]]) as "chefe da quadrilha" (head of the gang of thieves).<ref>http://www.ilisp.org/noticias/delcidio-confirma-lula-e-o-chefe-da-quadrilha-e-as-campanhas-de-dilma-foram-ilegais/</ref> In 2017, Lula was sentenced to nine years in jail by [[Sérgio Moro]], based
on the accusation of receiving and hiding an apartment as bribe. He wasn't arrested, since, by brazilian law, he can appeal in liberty.
<ref>http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-40488914</ref><ref>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-12/brazil-s-lula-sentenced-to-prison-on-corruption-charges</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

== External links ==

*[http://www.v-brazil.com/government/executive-branch/lula.html President Lula - biography.]
*[http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Ka-M/Lula-da-Silva-Luiz-In-cio.html Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Da Silva, Lula}}
[[Category:Politicians]]

Dilma Rousseff

2016-11-26T14:10:11Z

Sunda62: Tchau, querida

[[File:Dilma and daughter.jpg|thumb|Dilma and daughter, Jan. 1, 2011.]]
'''Dilma Rousseff''' (born 1947) was the President of [[Brazil]] from Jan. 1 2011 to May 12, 2016.[http://www2.planalto.gov.br/acompanhe-o-planalto/informacoes] She is an economist and politician who became the first woman president of Brazil on January 1, 2011. Rousseff was Minister of Energy and later Chief of Staff in the administration of President [[Lula da Silva|Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]. She was a [[Marxist]] who was imprisoned for three years, during which she said she was tortured with electric shocks. Upon her release from prison in the early 1970s, she continued her political path and eventually joined da Silva's Worker's Party.[http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Rousseff-Sworn-In-as-Brazils-First-Woman-President-112749864.html]

Inside Congress, taking an oath before the people’s representatives, Dilma declared that:
<blockquote>
she did not see her election as extolling her own accomplishments but as a glorification of the Brazilian woman. She said her election to command the country paid homage to all Brazilian women. “My commitment is to honor women, protect the weak and govern for all”.[http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/thenewsinenglish?p_p_id=56&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_56_groupId=19523&_56_articleId=3153996]
</blockquote>

Rousseff has agreed not to legalize [[abortion]].

<blockquote>
''“Personally, I am opposed to abortion and am in favor of maintaining the current law.”''[http://www.pisqa.com/10/brazil-dilma-rousseff-agrees-not-to-legalize-abortion/]
</blockquote>

During her period as president, she spent much more than was allowed by Brazilian law; according to Brazilian Constitution, this is a crime ("Crime de responsabilidade", lit. responsibility crime). The Congress and the Senated voted, resp. on Apr. 17, 2016 and May 11–12, 2016, that there was enough evidence to justify her impeachment, and her presidency was suspended on May 12, 2016. The interim president of Brazil is Rousseff's vice president, [[Michel Temer]]. [http://especiais.g1.globo.com/politica/2016/processo-de-impeachment-de-dilma/da-eleicao-a-votacao-do-impeachment/] She was judged by Brazilian Senate and, after three long months, she was removed on Aug 31, 2016. [http://www12.senado.leg.br/noticias/noticias/materias/2016/08/31/dilma-rousseff-perde-o-mandato-de-presidente-da-republica-mas-mantem-direitos-politicos]

== External links ==

*[http://www.daylife.com/topic/Dilma_Rousseff Dilma Rousseff.]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rousseff, Dilma}}

[[Category:Current Heads of State]]
[[Category:Current Heads of government]]
[[Category:Brazil]]

Talk:Fidel Castro

2016-11-26T13:48:48Z

Sunda62: /* Party in Hell */ new section

__TOC__
I’ve heard Castro called many things, but terrorist is not one of them, can someone explain why he is listed as a terrorist? Also could the information justifying that categorization be added to his page?--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 14:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:''4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.'' (See [[Differences_with_Wikipedia]])
:see [[Terrorism]] for a description of a terroist. Castro certainly was one.
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 14:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::It seems it depends on which of those definitions you are using as to whether or not Castro can be called a terrorist. If you are using the first definition, you can’t call him a terrorist (to the best of my knowledge) as the editorial policy here is (or seems to be) that we don’t say people (or possibly just living people) are guilty of doing something illegally (or, one assumes, unlawfully) unless they have been convicted of doing so. The second definition also probably doesn’t apply as Castro overpowered Batista with force not fear. The third definition (the one implicit in the discussion of Terrorism) may apply to Castro but I’d want to see evidence that he actually used “terror” to achieve his end—violence and intimidation clearly were used, but I’m less sure about terror (and if one part of a conjunction is false the whole of it is, so without some evidence that he used terror to achieve his end, you can’t call him a terrorist).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Castro couldn't have been convicted of being a terrorist because he terrorized the legal authority that could have convicted him out of existence.
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 15:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::That does seem to be a problem with the editorial policy (though I would say he used violence rather than terror to end the previous Cuban government), but I don’t make the policy (I’ve even argued against it). I’m just telling you what I gather the policy is. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 15:29, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

"the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."

By that definition Batista was a terrorist with his coup in 1934, just as Castro is, or George Washington for that matter...

It's all about the word "unlawful", which generally doesn't have the same meaning in different times and countries.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== DIctator/President ==

Interesting to note that Castro "has been the dictator of Cuba since 1959 and ''has called himself'' the President of Cuba since 1976," whereas [[Pervez Musharraf]] "''became'' President of Pakistan, ''via a coup''" (emphasis mine). What in essence is the difference? [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:46, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:For a dictator, he certainly relinquished power without much of a struggle. [[User:Rugxulo|Rugxulo]] 18:53, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Castro Dead?==
Can we see some hard evidence suggesting this? Just because he is keeping to himself dosn't mean he has died. He is still the Secretary of the communist party--[[User:WilliamMc|WilliamMc]] 12:37, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:Maybe Fidel Castro is alive and even editing this site!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::Speculation is not necessary here as Castro is no longer running the show. His brother Raul Castro was innagurated as acting President in July 2006. Until such evidence is shown speculation of his death is ultimately baseless. Please do not add any. This is not a gossip site after all. --[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:02, 29 December 2009 (EST)

:::Matthew, you're clueless here. When someone is missing for 3.5 years and there is an incentive to lie about his fate, then he's presumptively dead. Communists don't define the truth. God does.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:01, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::In October Castro allegedly met with the leader of Cyprus and a Chinese official. [http://nba.msg.com/photo/0a1W9IQclz2DV Here] is a supposed photo of Castro with Wu Bangguo. It's released by the Cuban state media, but apparently the (obviously liberal) AP found it sufficiently convincing as to endorse it.
::::Obviously it's possible that the leader of Cyprus (and at least three other leaders who have allegedly met him since July) was paid off to lie about this and the photo is of a lookalike (or older). But true or false, matters are perhaps not quite so simple as Fidel simply disappearing for the last few years, and we should carefully consider the evidence. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:13, 29 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Fidel, like many dictators, had body and face doubles, like the one we famously killed of Saddam in the opening salvo of the Iraq invasion. It seems far more likely to me that they just passed a double off as Castro than that they bribed a foreign head of state. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:16, 29 December 2009 (EST)

::::::[[Liberal denial]] illustrates its [[double standard]]. Natalie Holloway has been missing for a period comparable to Fidel Castro's absence, and no one would deny the likelihood that she is dead. It doesn't matter what the authorities might say. But no [[liberal]] will admit that Castro is likely dead also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::Well, the difference there is that Natalie Holloway disappeared, whereas Castro hasn't been seen in public for years. By that logic Macaulay Culkin is also dead. But seriously, Castro certainly could be dead, but that doesn't mean he is. If I had to guess, I'd say he's not. I think if he had died they would have staged an enormous funeral for him with all sorts of parades, teeming with propaganda. Dictators love that stuff. But that's just my opinion. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 12:08, 30 December 2009 (EST)

I just noticed that this made "[[Liberal Denial]]." DanL seems to make a good point Andy. I guess what I don't see is:
*a) What motivation the Cubans would have to lie about Castro being dead and
*b) What motivation liberals would have to insist that Castro is alive if he really were dead. It seems like a really obscure point at best. Personally, I'm assuming that Castro is alive for the same reason everyone else does: dictators don't just pass away unnoticed. Or is there a historical precedent I'm missing? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 12:25, 30 December 2009 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, I'm confused about whether you're saying you know he's dead or that you presume he's dead based on not being sighted in public. I just checked the news and there are quite a few references to him making statements recently. Are you saying someone is lying? If so, to what end? And the Holloway story is different in that she disappeared. You just haven't seen Castro lately. Others appear to have because they recorded his statements. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 12:38, 30 December 2009 (EST)

'''Motivation''' would primarily to conceal the power struggle while the fascists decide who's going to be the new dictator. Communists lie about everything else - particularly [[mass murder]] (see also [[genocide]]). The kind of political power that "comes out of the barrel of a gun" rather than the curtains of a voting booth is well disposed to deception. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:22, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:DanL and JDW seem to think that if a brutal communist regime claims someone is alive, then we should take that at face value even though he hasn't been seen publicly in 3.5 years. But they don't answer the question of why they believe communists when, for example, they probably wouldn't believe a similar claim that another missing person (such as Natalie Holloway) is still alive. As each day goes by without a public appearance by Fidel Castro or credible independent verification (e.g., a meeting with Republican congressmen), the chance Fidel Castro is still alive decreases. How much longer do DanL and JDW require before admitting that the chance has dropped to less than 50%? After 3.5 more years? 10 more years?

:Communists lie about everything. There's little reason to believe that the Russian dictator Yuri Andropov died when the communists said he did, given the long period when no one could confirm he was still alive either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::It's not just Cubans who say he's alive. Castro himself wrote several articles in the last few months and the president of Argentina met with him in Cuba. Do you think he's dead because you believe communists are in general liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 15:36, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::Well if you have doubts, feel free to fly down to Havana and see him for yourself. And while you're there, see about getting the right to criticize Castro's government...or the right to free speech in general, or the right to assemble freely with like-minded persons, or the right to attend the church of your choice, or the right to possess a gun just in case the government gets a tad-tyrannical. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:55, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict) Wow, Hector, that seals the case ... Castro supposedly wrote some articles! Of course that proves nothing.

:::Castro was a communist dictator. He reveled in worship of him by the public. After he's been missing for a period of time from self-serving public events, a period that started with a life-threatening medical condition and complex surgery, the chance that he is still alive decreases with each passing day. The [[liberal denial]] of this is remarkable.

:::Perhaps the closure by liberals will come when the New York Times finally runs a front page article asking these questions. Then, as soon as the communists can arrange it without being too obvious, they will announce that Castro just passed away.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:00, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::I don't really care either way since I don't have a horse in this race. If you'll notice, I'm just asking you questions, not taking a position one way or the other, so I'm not in liberal denial, whatever that is. I'm just concerned that you're not addressing that the president of Argentina met with him earlier this year. Hugo Chavez met with him more recently. Are these men liars? [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:03, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::Well, I guess your statement "I don't really care either way" constitutes the bonafide end of your argument. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:07, 30 December 2009 (EST)
::::::I'm sorry I came off as flippant there. I don't care whether he's alive or dead, to be honest, but I do care that the article reflect the truth instead of speculation. Thanks for pointing out my error. [[User:Hectoruribe|Hectoruribe]] 16:14, 30 December 2009 (EST)
:::::::What you need to do is to read the Bible as you said you try to do on your user page, specifically Revelation 3:14-18; it tells of what Jesus will do to a church that "doesn't really care one way or the other":
::::::::''And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.''
:::::::[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:19, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::Of course I don't take anything Communist regimes say at face value. They do indeed lie more than they tell the truth. Still I don't see the motivation in this case, as Castro is no longer even the leader, thus the power struggles Ed mentioned wouldn't be in play. Furthermore, I stand by my point. Dictators don't die unnoticed and unanounced: Stalin died and a massive funeral was organized overnight. Mao died and the same happened. Kim Il Sung, Hitler, you name it, no one kept their deaths a secret, because there was no reason to put off a big dramatic funeral and public outpouring of love for the Dear Leader. Can you name a single instance where a dictator died and his death was covered up?

::Not to mention, no one's touched my second question. What motivation would liberals have to ''deny'' that a dictator has died? To put it nicely, this whole issue sounds like shadow-boxing to me. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)

:::I do not know about Fidel Castro, however in history there were cases in which a leader died and a weaker leader took over, pretending to serve the interests of the previous leader. If Raul Castro is unpopular, maybe he pretends his brother is alive to use his power? I am not saying that this happened, but it is not without precedent.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 16:59, 30 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, apparently he's alive. He's made a public reappearance a couple of days ago. He looks quite ill, though. --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 14:02, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::And he was wearing a Nike jacket. Where is his hate to "American Imperialism"? This is liberal hypocrisy at its worst. I bet most cubans are not even allowed to buy one of those jackets.--[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 14:56, 12 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::CBS News reporting on Castro death rumors: ''[http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-1859015.html State Secret: Is Castro Dead?]'', Brian Goodman, September 22, 2009. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Since the last contribution to this discussion was two years ago, I just thought I'd chime in. Unless there was a revolution in plastic surgery I'm unaware of, this is Fidel Castro, speaking about Obama and the Republican nomination. He speaks about recent events in Syria and Lybia, mentions the POTUS as being almost powerless (so obviously he means Obama), and the last time there was a Republican nomination without a Dem nomination at the same time was in 1996, so this video could hardly be that old. Is this enough for us to at least consider the possibility of him being alive?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPcXhLojPo8
[[User:Fbelard|Fbelard]] 14:35, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Here's a recent picture of himself, his brother, and Hugo Chavez: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/13/fidel-castro-hugo-chavez-colombia-farc-talks]. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:14, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

And here`s a picture of February the 3rd 2013 http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/04/fidel-castro-says-hugo-chavez-condition-improving-in-battle-against-pelvic/ --[[User:Alex00|Alex00]] 13:31, 5 February 2013 (EST)

:The man photographed is too young to be Castro - look at his skin, the tell-tale sign of age. He's also too short to be Castro, assuming average height for those around him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::Watch this [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57567465/fidel-castro-hits-polls-in-rare-public-appearance/ video]. You can clearly see that the man in the video is elderly, frail, and stooped with age. You can also see that the man is quite obviously Fidel Castro. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 14:05, 5 February 2013 (EST)

:::Your comment is non-responsive to my specific points: the stand-in's skin is too young (and dissimilar to Castro), his height is too short, and it is generally implausible that an extremely sick, elderly man who likely had a terminal disease in 2006, is inexplicably fit and active more than six years later.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:30, 5 February 2013 (EST)
::::Try watching the video I linked to. The man isn't short, he's become severely stooped with age. His skin is on par with individuals of his age, and if you had watched the video, you wouldn't be describing him as "fit and active". --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 15:12, 5 February 2013 (EST)

== Category liberalism ==

Really? He's a communist. I think most people, including himself, would say that he's not a liberal. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 03:45, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

== He's alive ==

Multiple reference testify to Castro's continued life. Please supply references proving otherwise before reverting again. I refer you to your own Conservapedia Commandments. Obey them or admit they are no longer relevant to this project. [[User:RobertE|RobertE]] 17:18, 24 February 2013 (EST)

== Occam's razor ==

By this point, we should all admit to ourselves that Fidel Castro is alive. Old and haggard, certainly. But not dead. He has appeared in public multiple times. His appearances have become rare, but this is understandable given his age. And besides, Cuba may be a dump, but Castro is still a powerful man. He can avail himself to state-of-art healthcare if he wishes it. His alleged condition, diverticulitis, is hardly a death sentence, and can be cured by antibiotics. The root disease, diverticulosis, can be managed by a simple change in diet. It seems that if Castro did indeed have diverticulitis, he suffered complications and had to have surgery. it's possible that complications in the surgery may have lead to bacteria escaping the colon and killing him, but this brings us down to two competing hypotheses. 
Castro is dead 
Castro is alive 
Given that he has appeared in public, the likelier explanation is that he is alive. 
Castro will eventually die, sooner rather than later. But until then, Conservapedia embarrasses itself by claiming he is dead.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 21:31, 24 February 2013 (EST)
:So, no comment? I'll fix up the article in a few days if nobody objects--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 10:36, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::You will be reverted and possibly blocked. You should know better after all the discussion on this site that shows you without any doubt at all that the owner of the site wants it this way. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 17:41, 26 February 2013 (EST)

:::So why was the "Fidel" who supposedly met the [[Pope]] wearing a heavy scarf on a hot day, and stood much shorter than the real Fidel? See [[Mystery:Did a Fake Fidel Castro Meet the Pope?]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 26 February 2013 (EST)
::::Well, I can't say the presence of a scarf is particularly convincing. Alone, it certainly isn't. It does remind me of my late great-grandfather, however. Despite his doctor's urging, he would continue to wear wool pants every day, be it summer, spring, fall, or winter. That's something I've noticed about the elderly. As a CNA, I've found that our seniors are very sensitive to the cold.
::::Then there's also the question of what the scarf would be hiding. Looking at the photographs of Castro meeting with the pontiff, I see that his neck is covered. On the Mystery page, it is said that this is because it is difficult to replicate older age with a neck. Then why didn't they just procure an older actor? Surely this wouldn't be beyond the Cuban government's means.
:::: Similarly,if they were to rely on prosthetics to emulate a deceased Castro, why couldn't they have picked a taller actor?
::::Again, we are faced with two possibilities. Either Castro is alive, or he is dead. There is no evidence that he is dead, and barring a conspiracy involving the world's media, actors, and makeup, there is evidence that Fidel Castro yet lives. According to Occam's razor, the hypothesis making the least assumptions is the preferable one. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 09:26, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:Well there is one news source[http://www.theonion.com/articles/humiliated-team-of-cuban-doctors-forced-to-continu,31448/] that claims Castro is dead :). -[[User:EdgarP|EdgarP]] 20:40, 26 February 2013 (EST)

== Party in Hell ==

There must be a huge party in Hell if Fidel really died today. Or maybe Cuba just ran out of old people who could pass for him... [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] ([[User talk:Sunda62|talk]]) 08:48, 26 November 2016 (EST)

Lula da Silva

2016-05-14T15:58:32Z

Sunda62: "The most honest man in Brazil" :-)

Jair Bolsonaro

2016-05-14T15:31:58Z

Sunda62: Bolsonaro during the voting of the impeachment of Dilma. "Tchau, Querida!"

{{Officeholder
|name=Jair Messias Bolsonaro
|image=
|party= [[Social Christian Party|Social Christian]] (formerly [[Progressive Party (Brazil)|Progressive]])
|spouse=Ana Cristina Valle
|religion=[[Catholic]]
|offices=
}}

'''Jair Messias Bolsonaro''' (Campinas, March 21, 1955) is a brazilian [[military]] and [[conservative]] congressman. In its eighth consecutive term, Jair Bolsonaro is one of the most admired personalities and at the same time one of the most hated of [[Brazil]]. Bolsonaro is the most [[right-wing]] politician on the brazilian political spectrum, and for defending [[christian values|Christians]], [[family values|family]], [[traditional values|traditional]] and [[conservative values]], was labeled by the Brazilian media as "[[Nazi]]"<ref>[http://www.cartacapital.com.br/tecnologia/a-onda-bolsonaro-e-o-despertar-do-neonazismo The Bolsonaro wave and the awakening of neo-Nazism] - [[CartaCapital]]</ref>, "[[homophobic]]"<ref>[http://terramagazine.terra.com.br/interna/0,,OI5125255-EI6578,00-Vou+processar+o+Bolsonaro+diz+Mott+sobre+panfletos.html Earth. "I'll sue the Bolsonaro" says Mott on pamphlets] - Terramagazine.terra.com.br.</ref>, "[[racist]]"<ref>[http://noticias.uol.com.br/politica/2011/04/01/para-ministra-da-igualdade-racial-declaracoes-de-bolsonaro-sao-caso-explicito-de-racismo.jhtm Chief of Seppir consider statements such as "explicit racism" of Bolsonaro]. - UOL (April 1, 2011). Visited on April 2, 2011.</ref>, "[[fascist]]"<ref>[http://www.joildo.net/artigos/tortura-nunca-mais/ Mario Jakobskind (May 29, 2009). Torture Never Again! Joildo.net]</ref>, "[[sexist]]"<ref>[http://www.mndh.org.br/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2747&Itemid=56 MNDH want full pressure against Bolsonaro] - MNDH.</ref> and "[[white supremacist]]".

When he was elected for the first time, Bolsonaro was a [[nationalist]] defender of [[big government]], [[protectionist]] and contrary to the [[free market]] and [[fiscal conservatism]]. Over the years, Bolsonaro was evolving and increasingly taking the [[right-wing]] positions. Today is one of the few Brazilian politicians advocating a [[limited government]] and a [[free economy]] without bureaucracy.

Another accusation that usually fall on Jair Bolsonaro is of the neo-[[nepotism]] due to the fact that the deputy has three sons in politics. Carlos Bolsonaro (councilor of Rio de Janeiro), Flávio Bolsonaro (state deputy from Rio de Janeiro), both also from the PP, and Eduardo Bolsonaro (federal police and federal deputy from Sao Paulo), of the PSC. These have very similar ideas of Jair, however, have thought himself and disagree with the father in some ways.

Bolsonaro is trying to be a candidate for president of [[Brazil]] in 2018<ref>[http://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/marcelo-moraes/2014/10/30/bolsonaro-serei-o-candidato-da-direita-a-presidencia-em-2018/ Bolsonaro: "I will be the right-wing candidate for the presidency in 2018"] - Estadão.</ref>, I had tried in 2014, but the leaders of [[Progressive Party (Brazil)|his party]] decided, anti-democratic, supporting the [[Marxist]] government of [[Dilma Rousseff]]. Among the presidential proposals Jair Bolsonaro are closing unnecessary ministries (such as Ministry of Finance, which keeps the [[socialism|government in control of the economy]], and the Defense Ministry, which puts the [[fascism|military subordination to political]]), the reduction of state in all its spheres, the [[free market]], [[homeschooling]], the neutral point of view in schools, private health, the end of [[gun control]], the prohibition of [[same-sex marriage]] and family planning.

The most leftist members of his party usually classify it as a ''PSNN'' (''Progressista Só No Nome'' - ''[[Progressive]] In Name Only'', ''PLINO''). In March 2016, he left PP to join [[Social Christian Party]].

During the voting of the [[impeachment of Dilma Rousseff]] in the Congress, on Apr. 17, 2016, Bolsonaro dedicated his vote to [[Brilhante Ustra]], the only militair that was declared by the Justice as a "torturer", and who allegedly was the torturer of Rousseff in the 1970s. [[Jean Wyllys]], after he voted, spat on Bolsanaro.<ref>http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/noticias/2016/04/160417_momentos_marcantes_impeachment_ru</ref>

== Quotes from Jair Bolsonaro ==
*"[[Dilma Rousseff]] is [[Adolf Hitler]] using skirts" - About the [[Marxist]] president [[Dilma Rousseff]].

== References ==
<references>
</references>

== See also ==
*[[Progressive Party (Brazil)]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bolsonaro, Jair}}

[[Category:Brazil]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Pro Second Amendment]]

Talk:Jair Bolsonaro

2016-05-14T15:25:50Z

Sunda62: Created page with "It's funny to read Dilma Rousseff labeled "Marxist", since in the 13 years of her party's misgovernment the only ones who profited were the dozen or so of the most rich people..."

It's funny to read Dilma Rousseff labeled "Marxist", since in the 13 years of her party's misgovernment the only ones who profited were the dozen or so of the most rich people in Brazil. If "left" is governing for the people and "right" for the rich (which it isn't, but that's how leftists think about themselves), then Dilma and Lula were extreme-extreme-extreme-right. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] ([[User talk:Sunda62|talk]]) 11:25, 14 May 2016 (EDT)

Dilma Rousseff

2016-05-14T15:16:50Z

Sunda62: Tchau, Querida!

[[File:Dilma and daughter.jpg|thumb|Dilma and daughter, Jan. 1, 2011.]]
'''Dilma Rousseff''' (1947 - ) was the President of [[Brazil]] from Jan. 1 2011 to May 12 2016.[http://www2.planalto.gov.br/acompanhe-o-planalto/informacoes] She is an economist and politician who became the first woman president of Brazil on January 1, 2011. Rousseff was Minister of Energy and later Chief of Staff in the administration of President [[Lula da Silva|Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]. She was a [[Marxist]] who was imprisoned for three years, during which she said she was tortured with electric shocks. Upon her release from prison in the early 1970s, she continued her political path and eventually joined da Silva's Worker's Party.[http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Rousseff-Sworn-In-as-Brazils-First-Woman-President-112749864.html]

Inside Congress, taking an oath before the people’s representatives, Dilma declared that:
<blockquote>
she did not see her election as extolling her own accomplishments but as a glorification of the Brazilian woman. She said her election to command the country paid homage to all Brazilian women. “My commitment is to honor women, protect the weak and govern for all”.[http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/thenewsinenglish?p_p_id=56&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_56_groupId=19523&_56_articleId=3153996]
</blockquote>

Rousseff has agreed not to legalize [[abortion]].

<blockquote>
''“Personally, I am opposed to abortion and am in favor of maintaining the current law.”''[http://www.pisqa.com/10/brazil-dilma-rousseff-agrees-not-to-legalize-abortion/]
</blockquote>

During her period as president, she spent much more than was allowed by brazilian law; according to brazilian Constitution, this is a crime ("Crime de responsabilidade", lit. responsability crime). The Congress and the Senated voted, resp. on Apr. 17, 2016 and May 11-12, 2016, that there was enough evidence to justify her impeachment, and her presidency was suspended on May 12, 2016. The interim president of Brazil is Rousseff's vice president, [[Michel Temer]]. [ttp://especiais.g1.globo.com/politica/2016/processo-de-impeachment-de-dilma/da-eleicao-a-votacao-do-impeachment/]

== External links ==

*[http://www.daylife.com/topic/Dilma_Rousseff Dilma Rousseff.]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rousseff, Dilma}}

[[Category:Current Heads of State]]
[[Category:Current Heads of government]]
[[Category:Brazil]]

Dilma Rousseff

2016-05-14T15:15:13Z

Sunda62: Tchau, Querida!

[[File:Dilma and daughter.jpg|thumb|Dilma and daughter, Jan. 1, 2011.]]
'''Dilma Rousseff''' (1947 - ) was the President of [[Brazil]] from Jan. 1 2011 to May 12 2016.[http://www2.planalto.gov.br/acompanhe-o-planalto/informacoes] She is an economist and politician who became the first woman president of Brazil on January 1, 2011. Rousseff was Minister of Energy and later Chief of Staff in the administration of President [[Lula da Silva|Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva]]. She was a [[Marxist]] who was imprisoned for three years, during which she said she was tortured with electric shocks. Upon her release from prison in the early 1970s, she continued her political path and eventually joined da Silva's Worker's Party.[http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Rousseff-Sworn-In-as-Brazils-First-Woman-President-112749864.html]

Inside Congress, taking an oath before the people’s representatives, Dilma declared that:
<blockquote>
she did not see her election as extolling her own accomplishments but as a glorification of the Brazilian woman. She said her election to command the country paid homage to all Brazilian women. “My commitment is to honor women, protect the weak and govern for all”.[http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/thenewsinenglish?p_p_id=56&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=1&_56_groupId=19523&_56_articleId=3153996]
</blockquote>

Rousseff has agreed not to legalize [[abortion]].

<blockquote>
''“Personally, I am opposed to abortion and am in favor of maintaining the current law.”''[http://www.pisqa.com/10/brazil-dilma-rousseff-agrees-not-to-legalize-abortion/]
</blockquote>

During her period as president, she spent much more than was allowed by brazilian law; according to brazilian Constitution, this is a crime ("Crime de responsabilidade", lit. responsability crime). The Congress and the Senated voted, resp. on Apr. 17, 2016 and May 11, 2016, that there was enough evidence to justify her impeachment, and her presidency was suspended on May 12, 2016. The interim president of Brazil is Rousseff's vice president, [[Michel Temer]]. [ttp://especiais.g1.globo.com/politica/2016/processo-de-impeachment-de-dilma/da-eleicao-a-votacao-do-impeachment/]

== External links ==

*[http://www.daylife.com/topic/Dilma_Rousseff Dilma Rousseff.]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Rousseff, Dilma}}

[[Category:Current Heads of State]]
[[Category:Current Heads of government]]
[[Category:Brazil]]

Slavery

2016-02-11T22:54:09Z

Sunda62: /* Present Day */ Daesh, the really "honest" followers of the teachings of Mohammed :-/

'''Slavery''' is a legal economic system with involuntary servitude, such that the people held in bondage must work for their owner, and can be bought and sold (see [[slave trade]]).

Legally, the slave has limited rights. For example, it was a crime in the American South to kill or maim a slave, except in self-defense.

In the American South, slavery normally was a lifetime condition, and children born to slave mothers automatically became slaves of the owner.

In human history, slavery originated when people were captured in warfare. Secondarily, slavery resulted when some able-bodied people became so poor through debts that some wealthy people claimed them as property at least until they worked off their debts. The [[Year of Jubilee]] was instituted by God for His own nation in order to prevent slavery from becoming a means by which cleverly unscrupulous, or cleverly ignorant, people made a living, such as happened in the American South.

In America the vast majority of slaves were African blacks, and many of these had been bought from African tribal leaders; Indians starved themselves to death rather than live as slaves. From 1500 to 1820, hundreds of thousands of Europeans were captured in war by Muslims and made slaves.

Western Christendom abolished slavery during the 19th century.
The last forms of legal slavery were outlawed in 1970 in the Arabian countries, but hidden slavery still exists today in remote parts of Africa such as the [[Sudan]] where Arabs own black slaves. In Mauritania, dark-skinned people own lighter-skinned slaves.<ref> [http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9605/articles/gregory.html African Slavery 1996]</ref>

Slavery was found in the history of most civilizations. Slavery flourishes where there is a high demand for labor and not enough workers. When the workers are plentiful, slavery dies out because it is unprofitable. That is, it becomes cheaper to free a slave and hire low cost paid labor than to buy and maintain slaves. Typically, when it had almost died out, it was made illegal by the government, as in Brazil.

The most famous instance of slavery was in the American South until it was forcibly ended during the [[American Civil War]] (1861-65)--the only major war in world history fought over slavery.

==Economics==
The two main forms of slavery are house servants (in which slaves are luxury items owned by the rich), and field work, in which slaves are used as a cheap labor force. If free labor is cheaper than expensive slaves, slavery will disappear. If there is a shortage of laborers (and an abundance of work to do), slavery becomes economically possible. It is especially profitable in new lands with few people and rich soils or mines that require imported labor.

Slavery tended to die out in cities and flourished only in rural areas. In the cities rich families owned many slaves as a luxury good guaranteeing good servants. Otherwise, slaves in cities were more expensive to maintain than free labor, which could be hired and fired as needed. Slave labor was profitable for farms, mines, and construction jobs; it was not profitable for factories.

==History==
===Ancient world===
[[File:Slavebeating.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Slavery in Ancient Egypt. Wall [[painting]] from 15th century BC Egyptian tomb.]]
Most ancient civilizations, including Greece and Rome, practiced slavery on a large scale.

Slavery has its roots deep in humanity's pagan past, in humanity's fallen, self-centered nature. According to the Bible, God created humankind free, giving them the dignity of choice. Yet slavery is found earlier than the time of Abraham (about 2,000 B.C.) In the Garden of Eden, according to the Bible, God gave Adam the blessing of work even before the Fall. That work became harder after our first parents rebelled against their Creator.<ref>The Holy Bible, Genesis 3:17-19</ref></ref>Heathen nations despised manual labor, and consigned it to slaves<ref>Lorella Rouster, The History of Slavery, ECM Publ, 2011, [/ 1</ref>

All early civilizations were built on slave labor--Mesopotamia, Babylon, Eqypt, Greece, Rome, and the big civilizations of Central America.<ref>Rouster, p. 2</ref> Milton Meltzer's book, Slavery, A World History, is filled with pictures of ancient carvings, paintings and other artifacts clealy picturing slavery..<ref>Milton Meltzer, Slavery, a World History</ref> Historian Kenneth Scott LaTourette said, "Slavery was a characteristic feature of the social and economic organization of the ancient world."<ref>LaTourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, Vol. I, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1939, 1967, p. 26</ref>

In [[Egypt]], the Hebrews were slaves for a time. "All the slaves were considered the property of the gods and the pharaoh."<ref>Meltzer, p. 32</ref> Technically, slaves in Egypt were prisoners of war and foreigners. However, the peasant class which did all the manual labor were tied to the land belonging to pharaoh and had a standard of living difficult to distinguish from slavery.<ref>Meltzer, p. 30</ref>

The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos." From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states. In [[Ancient Greece|ancient Athens]] about 30% of the population consisted of slaves.<ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741501460_4/Ancient_Greece.html Ancient Greece]</ref> "Sumerian society knew two classes: free men and slaves." Over time, slaves grew in number and provided cheap and abundant labor.<ref>Milton Meltzer, Slavery, a World History, p. 11-12</ref>

Greek civilization was utterly dependent on slave labor. Three-fourths of Athens were slaves. (Athens was the city the Apostle Paul described as "given to idolatry" in Acts 17:16.)

In Greek and Roman society, human beings were seen as having no intrinsic value. They had value only as citizens of the state, and only a minority of people qualified as such. Those who had no value included the infirm, the poor, the lower classes, prisoners of war, slaves, artisans and manual workers. Noncitizens were defined as having no purpose and hence unworthy to be helped when their lives were at risk. This meant they were not considered worthy to receive physical protection or even food.<ref>Alvin Schmidt, Under the Influence, How Christianity Transformed Civilization, p. 130</ref> The Greek philopher Aristotle wrote, "a slave is a living took, just as a tool is an inanimate slave."<ref>Nichomadean Ethics 8:11, quoted in Schmidt, p. 274</ref>

In Roman society, "domestic slaves did every conceivable kind of work for their masters. Among them were eunuchs to attend to the women and cripples to "amuse" guests with their deformities. A rich man needed at least two slaves to carry him to the circus, but eight to ten usually went along for show. When a man walked at night, he had to have a train of slaves bearing torches to light and protect him on his way. Domestic slaves of the wealthy were many that they were organized like armies into specialized battalions. The more powerful Romans acquired staffs of better than a thousand slaves. One man, C. Caelius Isidorus, left 4,116 slaves when he died. The emperors, whose wealth outstripped all, boasted slave "families" of 20,000 or more<ref>Meltzer, p. 138</ref>

Under Roman law, slaves had no rights. They were considered property, not persons. They could not own or inherit property. They were not permitted to legally marry, so all their children were considered illegitimate.<ref>Meltzer, p. 144 & 176</ref>

Often prisoners of wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. Historians debate how extensive slavery was in the Roman Empire--estimates go as high as 25% of the population.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_01.shtml BBC - History - Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome]</ref> [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves. The Roman jurist Ulpian wrote, "As far as Roman law is concerned, slaves are regarded as nothing."<ref>Meltzer, p. 178</ref>

Other means by which ancient peoples went into slavery were inability to pay debts, being sold by their parents for the same reason, being born to slave parents, and being kidnapped by slave raiders or pirates.

The name "slav" which forms a part of the name of many European people groups is derived from the word "slave." According to the [[Domesday Book]] census in 1086 AD, 10% of England's population was enslaved.<ref>[http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs2970.htm Domesday Book Slave]</ref>

{{Clear}}

== The Decline of Slavery under Christianity ==

Christianity was born into a world that was overwhelmed with slavery, with Rome, the dominant world power in the time of Jesus, utterly dependent on slave labor. The life and teachings of Jesus and His followers, described in the New Testament, while not forbidding slavery nor organizing any campaign against it, struck at the very roots of slavery, drying up its power much as herbicides work on killing stubborn weeds from the roots up.<ref>Rouster, History of Slavery, p.6.</ref>

Jesus dignified labor by working as a carpenter. He took the form of a servant. He washed the disciples' feet. He commanded us to love our neighbors and do good to our enemies. He had a habit of calling people back to the beginning of things, and in the beginning God created people free. Christianity promoted the equality of its members, accepting slave and slavemaster as equal brothers and sisters serving side by side in the church (Galatians 3:28). Christianity, like Judaism before it, taught that God gave humankind the dignity to choose for ourselves. That is possible only in liberty and not in slavery. These influences worked quietly at first, for Christians were not a world power or even a majority. Most had no political power, and they lived in a totalitarian system. Yet because of the Christian emphasis on love and mercy, slavery was soon rid of most of its extreme features of cruelty. In early Christian writings, there was an emphasis on being free in spirit to serve Christ even if one's station in life was as a slave. Ambrose wrote that the slave "might be superior in character to his master and might be more truly free" (LaTourette, p. 622.

However, in the second and third centuries after Christ, as wealthy Romans began to be converted to Christiantiy, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by converts. Melania freed 8,000, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, Hermes 1200. <ref>Shmidt, p. 274, from W.E. H. Lecky, History of European Morals, 1911</ref> Converted out of a decadent, totally self-absorbed society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and free slaves. Liberation was frequent, especially on Easter and other special days of the church. Church law from the early centuries allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services. <ref>CAnnon LIIIV, The African Code CAnons, aslo called the Canons of he Fathers Assembled at Carthage, 419 A.D.</ref><ref>The Canons of the Council in Tuillo (also called the Quinisext Council, 692 A.D..</ref>Freeing slaves took great conviction and courage, for the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to the practice. Clement said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others."<ref>Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book III, Chapter IV</ref>

Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.) led many clergy under his authority in N Africa to free their slaves "as an act of piety".<ref>Augustine, "Of the Work of Monks", p. 25, Vol. 3, Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers</ref> He boldly wrote a letter to the emperor urging a new law against slave traders, and showed great concern about the slave of children.<ref>The Saints, p. 72</ref> He saw slavery as a product of sin and as contrary to God's plan, writing that God "did not intend that this rational creature, who was made in His image, should have dominion man over man, but man over the beasts.<ref>Augustine, The City of God, chapter 15, p. 411, Vol. II, Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers</ref>

Likewise Chrysostom, a fourth century church leader, wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christians to buy slaves, teach them a skill by which to make a living, and set them free. The act of Christians freeing slaves was so common in his day that he wrote that many outside the church complained that Christianity was subverting the system, causing masters to have their slaves taken from them.

Ambrose, a church leader about the same time, redeemed all the slaves he could.<ref>Ambrose, Duties of the Christian Clergy, p. 54</ref>

===Medieval Europe===
[[Image:Ruslavery.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Painting]] of a slave market in late medieval Eastern Europe.]]

Slavery in [[Poland]] was forbidden in the 15th century; in [[Lithuania]], slavery was formally abolished in 1588; they were replaced by the second enserfment.

Slavery was a major institution in [[Russia]], and families facing starvation often sold themselves into slavery. Russian agricultural slaves were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679. In 1723, when the [[Peter the Great]] converted the remaining household slaves into house serfs. <ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24160 Welcome to Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History]</ref> Serfdom was abolished in 1863 by Tsar [[Alexander II]]; however, most serfs had to pay the government for giving them land.

===African Slave Trade===

== African Practices of Slavery ==

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the king, but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies.

== The Islamic Trans-Sahara Slave Trade ==

Slavery was rapidly declining in Europe due to the influence of Christianity, and had all but disappeared from much of Europe when the advent of Islam brought a rebirth of the slave trade.<ref>L W Miller, Anti-Slavery Activism 101, ECM Publ, 2011</ref>
Islam has always expanded primarily though making war (declaring jihad) on its neighbors and forcing people to convert, be executed, or live in slavery in a subservient status to Islam. The demand for slaves was largely created by wealthy Islamic rulers who required salve women for the large harems to which they were accustomed, as well as soldiers and servants. The trade began in 652 A.D. when Abdallah Ben Said, King of Islamized Egypt, waged jihad on the Sudan, conquered it and imposed on the Sudanic King Khalidurat the treaty called Bakht. The treaty required annual supply of hundreds of slaves to Said.<ref>http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120413180645205 University World News, ''Scholars Focus on Arab Trans-Saharan Slave Trade''</ref>

Islam partnered with African kings who were already involved in enslaving captured populations. Long trains of slaves were sent across the Saharan with slaves marching on foot. Islam dominated the African slave trade from the 7th to the 15th centuries, and continued on a smaller basis long after that. It has never stopped in some Muslim lands.

Islamic slavery had very high death rates. It is estimated that 80% died on the long, harsh march through the Sahara.

Castration of males was a very dominant feature of the Islamic slave trade. Specific cities in the Sahara were given to this practice as the Islamic caravans passed through. Such "eunuchs" brought the highest prices, purchased by rich Arab kings and princes as security agents for large harems. It is estimated that 70 to 90% perished in the ordeal of castration.<ref>http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20120413180645205 University World News, ''Scholars Focus on Arab Trans-Saharan Slave Trade''</ref> Castration centers developed in the Mossi country; Damagaram in Niger; Borno in northeastern Nigeria; Kumasi in Ashantiland now Ghana; Kano, Nigeria (the largest--early British administrators wrote frequently about it); and Baguimi (also spelled Aaghirmi, in Chad Republic & along the Nigerian border--the best known). Some African kings were already practicing castration of their enemies, but the Islamic slave trade institutionalized it. This, along with the fact that any children born to slave women were usually killed at birth, is the reason there are few descendants of these slaves and little African diaspora in Arab Islamic lands.<ref>http://forums.eunuch.org/showthread.php?10192-Ottoman-Eunuchs</ref><ref>http://patachu.com/slavery-trans-Saharan-trade/</ref> Some early sources of direct evidence of the Islamic slave trade were al-Yakub, a 9th century Arab writer; Ibn Battuta, a 12th century eyewitness; Mansa Museh, 1324, and Leo Africanus, 1494-1554.

== The Transatlantic Slave Trade ==

===1492-1865===
In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a right of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The Spanish had already been enslaving South American natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. 12 million of African slaves were brought by the Europeans to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The demand for sugar was exploding throughout the entire western world. Soon France, the Netherlands and Britain were also establishing profitable sugar plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white [[plantation]] owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave; most died in less than 10 years, and had to be replaced.

European traders encouraged Africans to trade slaves with them. The [[Trans-Atlantic slave trade]] became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, in which African rulers sold prisoners of war and even their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner, much as slaves had been considered in ancient Greece and Rome. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

* After kidnapping potential slaves, merchants forced them to walk in slave caravans to the European coastal forts, sometimes as far as 1,000 miles. Shackled and underfed, only half the people survived these death marches. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1narr4.html]

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

Although slavery had existed in all cultures from the dawn of human history, the trans-Atlantic trade was the first time the trade was based primarily on one race enslaving another. This dehumanizing of black Africans had a devastating and demoralizing effect on the whole group. Many began to believe there was something inherently bad about their blackness and something intrinsically inferior about African Americans, including themselves. Unlike the eunuchs and ghilmans who were castrated by caravans of Islamic slave traders, black slaves in America reproduced and passed on the feelings of inferiority and sometimes bitterness and deep anger.<ref>Lorella Rouster, Anti-Slavery Activism 101, Every Child Ministries, Edition 2, 2011, p. 27-28</ref>

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

For a long time, until the early 18th century, the Crimean Khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the [[Ottoman Empire]] and the Middle East. Kefe was one of the best known and significant trading ports and slave markets. In a process called "harvesting of the steppe" Crimean Tatars enslaved many Slavic peasants.
[[Image:Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe The Slave Market.jpg|right|thumb|350px|[[Gustave Boulanger]], ''The Slave Market''.]]

====Islam====
In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early [[Islamic]] states of the western Sudan, including Ghana (750-1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275-1591), about a third of the population were slaves. In [[Sierra Leone]] in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of slaves. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon, the [[Igbo]] and other peoples of the lower Niger, the [[Kingdom of Kongo|Kongo]], and the Kasanje kingdom and Choke of [[Angola]]. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of slaves. The population of the [[Kanem]] was about a third-slave. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1396–1893). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of slaves. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in the northern [[Nigeria]] and Cameroon was half-slave in the 19th century. It is estimated that up to 90% of the population of [[Arab]]-Swahili Zanzibar was enslaved. Roughly half the population of [[Madagascar]] was enslaved.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157 Welcome to Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History]</ref>

The Anti-Slavery Society estimated that there were 2 million slaves in [[Ethiopia]] in the early 1930s, out of an estimated population of between 8 and 16 million.<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/cbss/Miers.pdf Twentieth Century Solutions of the Abolition of Slavery]</ref> Ethiopia officially abolished slavery and serfdom after regaining its independence in 1942. On August 26, 1942 [[Haile Selassie]] issued a proclamation outlawing slavery.<ref>[http://www.globalmarch.org/resourcecentre/world/ethiopia.pdf Ethiopia]; [http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2691/COS2.html Chronology of slavery]</ref>
====India====
India in 1841 had an estimated 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 slaves in India.<ref>According to Sir Henry Bartle Frere (who sat on the Viceroy's Council).</ref> In Malabar, about 15% of the population were slaves. Slavery was abolished in both Hindu and Muslim India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843. Provisions of the Indian Penal Code of 1861 effectively abolished slavery in India by making the enslavement of human beings a criminal offense.<ref>[http://www.wluml.org/english/pubs/pdf/occpaper/OCP-07.pdf Islamic Law and the Colonial Encounter in British India]</ref>
====Korea====
Indigenous slaves existed in [[Korea]]. During the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910) about 30% to 40% of the Korean population consisted of slaves. Slavery was hereditary, as well as a form of legal punishment. There was a slave class with both government and privately owned slaves, and the government occasionally gave slaves to citizens of higher rank. Privately owned slaves could be inherited as personal property. During poor harvests and famine, many peasants would voluntarily become slaves in order to survive. In the case of private slaves they could buy their freedom.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-693609/history-of-Korea Korea, history pre-1945:slavery -- Encyclopaedia Britannica]</ref><ref>[http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~geobl/main/lectures/l17.html The Choson Era: Late Traditional Korea]</ref><ref>[http://ideas.repec.org/p/snu/ioerwp/no26.html Korean Nobi]</ref> Slavery was officially abolished with the Gabo Reform of 1894.

===Present Day===
Slavery was also known among [[Arabs]] into the 20th century. As recently as the 1950s, [[Saudi Arabia]] had an estimated 450,000 slaves, 20% of the population.<ref>[http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm Slavery in Islam]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr07/page18.html £400 for a Slave]</ref> It is estimated that as many as 200,000 people had been taken into slavery in Sudan during the Second Sudanese Civil War.<ref>[http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/in_depth/sudan-genocide.html War and Genocide in Sudan]</ref><ref>[http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/livewire/archived/the_lost_children_of_sudan/ The Lost Children of Sudan]</ref> In [[Mauritania]] it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labor.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1458_abolition/page4.shtml The Abolition season on BBC World Service]</ref> Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in 2007.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6938032.stm Mauritanian MPs pass slavery law]</ref> In [[Niger]], slavery is also a current phenomenon; a Nigerien study has found that more than 800,000 people, or almost 8% of the population, are slaves.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=813618&page=1 The Shackles of Slavery in Niger]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4250709.stm Born to be a slave in Niger]</ref> The Tuareg-rebels in [[Mali]] have a long tradition of practicing slavery.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2013/howard-rotberg/slave-labor-from-auschwitz-to-mali/</ref> [[Daesh]], who follow the teaching of Mohammed, restablished slavery; the women are sex slaves, while the men are used to work. Until 2015, they had captured and enslaved about 7,000 young women and children.<ref>http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/629563/Daesh-kidnaps-women-children-sell-sex-slaves-social-media</ref>

Also, the term "slavery" is often used metaphorically for sex workers who are controlled by pimps.

==Famous Slaves==
* [[St. Felicity]]
* [[St. Patrick]]
* [[Pope Pius I]]
* [[Pope Callixtus I]]
* [[Pope Clement I]]
* [[Spartacus]]
* [[Frederick Douglass]]
* [[Harriet Tubman]]
* [[Dred Scott]]
* [[Booker T. Washington]]
* [[Atilla the Hun]]
* [[Denmark Vesey]]

==Abolition of Slavery==
===France===
France had slavery in its Caribbean colonies and [[Condorcet]] (1743 - 1794), an influential [[philosophe]], rejected slavery as antithetical to Enlightenment morality. He became a leader in the antislavery movement and in the 1780s attacked the institution of slavery on philosophical and moral grounds in his writings. After 1780, Condorcet took a leading, though secret, role in antislavery agitation by writing ''Reflections on Negro Slavery'' under the pseudonym Dr. Schwartz. In 1784, he was a founder and principal actor in La Société des Amis des Noirs, which sought to prepare for the eventual abolition of slavery. By 1794, Condorcet still supported colonization, but believed that a colonization based on liberal economics and civil equality could transform the world.

[[Napoleon]] (ruled 1799-1815) made a major adventure into the Caribbean--sending 30,000 troops in 1802 to retake Saint Domingue ([[Haiti]]) from ex-slaves under black leader [[Toussaint L'Ouverture]] who had revolted and killed off the whites and mulattoes. Napoleon wanted to preserve France's financial benefits from the colony's sugar and coffee crops; he then planned to establish a major base at New Orleans. He therefore reestablished slavery in Haiti and [[Guadeloupe]], where it had been abolished after rebellions. Slaves and black freedmen fought the French for their freedom and independence. Revolutionary ideals played a central role in the fighting for it was the slaves and their comrades who were fighting for the revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality, while the French troops under General Charles Leclerc fought to restore the order of the ancien régime. The goal of reestablishing slavery - which explicitly contradicted the ideals of the French Revolution - demoralized the French troops. The demoralized French soldiers were unable to cope with the tropical diseases, and most died of yellow fever. Slavery was reimposed in Guadeloupe but not in Haiti, which became an independent black republic. <ref> Philippe R. Girard, "Liberte, Egalite, Esclavage: French Revolutionary Ideals and the Failure of the Leclerc Expedition to Saint-Domingue." ''French Colonial History'' 2005 6: 55-77. in [[Project MUSE]]</ref> Napoleon's vast colonial dreams for Egypt, India, the Caribbean, Louisiana, and even Australia were all doomed for lack of a fleet capable of matching Britain's Royal Navy. Realizing the fiasco Napoleon liquidated the Haiti project, brought home the survivors and sold off Louisiana to the U.S.<ref>Steven Englund, ''Napoleon: A Political Life'' (2004). p 259. Slavery remained in Guadeloupe until 1848.</ref>

===United States===
The first black slaves were brought to [[Jamestown]] Colony early on. Originally, slavery was legal in every British American colony. However, after the [[American Revolution]], the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that, since the new state constitution read, "All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties", it made slavery illegal. By 1804, slavery had been abolished in every northern state.<ref>However, in many states, current slaves remained in servitude for the rest of their lives.</ref>

[[The South]] after 1800 became more militant in defense of slavery. [[John C. Calhoun]] and other southerners (usually members of the [[Democratic Party]]) called it the South's "peculiar institution" and proclaimed it a good idea. Some proponents suggested it would also be a good idea for white workers who were living under worse conditions in Northern cities.<ref> Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese, ''Slavery in White and Black: Class and Race in the Southern Slaveholders'' (2008)</ref> It flourished in the Southern states until [[Abraham Lincoln]], a Republican, and his Union Army abolished it during the [[American Civil War]]. This was a case of racial slavery--the slaves were black, the owners were white.<ref> A few free blacks owned slaves--usually relatives they had purchased from whites. Indian tribes also had slaves, both Indian and black.</ref>

===British Empire===
Emancipation of slaves in the British Caribbean became a major cause by the 1800s, when abolitionists such as [[William Wilberforce]] and [[John Wesley]] began speaking out against the evils of the system.<ref>[http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm William Wilberforce (1759-1833)]</ref> Wilberforce was supported in his efforts by [[John Newton]], a slave trader who became a Christian and then opposed the slave trade. In 1807 the [[House of Commons]] passed the Slave Trade Abolition Bill by a 283-16 vote. It made the international slave trade a crime of piracy and sent the Royal Navy to enforce it.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2007/03/20/abolition_navy_feature.shtml Sailing against slavery. By Jo Loosemore] BBC</ref> In 1808 the U.S. also outlawed the international trade. However, some slave traders evaded the prohibition--many were caught and hung, with the freed captives sent to [[Sierra Leone]]. Slavery remained legal inside the [[British Empire]] (including Canada) until 1833 when the government bought all the slaves from the owners<ref> Mostof the owners lived in great mansions in London, and appreciated the money.</ref> and freed them.<ref>The ex-slaves went through an apprenticeship process before gaining freedom. Andrea Curry ''Timeline: The Abolition of the Slave Trade'', British Heritage Magazine (May 2007)</ref> <ref>[http://slavetrade.parliament.uk/slavetrade/history/parliamentabolishestheslavetrade/draftdocument.html History: Parliament Abolishes the Slave Trade] Parliamentary House of Lords</ref>

===United States===
In the United States, the northern states abolished slavery by 1803--most of the slaves there were house servants. In [[The South]], however, cotton made slavery very profitable and 11 states seceded in 1861 to protect their interest. [[Abraham Lincoln]] achieved the end of slavery in 1863-65, using the Army and the [[13th Amendment]]. In Cuba and Brazil, slavery was unprofitable and finally collapsed in the 1880s as few people wanted to buy slaves.

===Abolitionists===
*[[Harriet Tubman]], Underground Railroad. (1820 - 1913) <ref>http://www.heritageny.gov/Railroad/urny.cfm</ref> Well-known associate of the Underground Railroad. Acted as a spy and led raids to assist others in gaining their freedom.
*[[Frederick Douglass]], orator, writer and publisher. (1817 - 1875) <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/447/000048303/</ref> Respected leader of the abolitionist movement, consummate freedom seeker, orator and publisher.
*[[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], unitarian minister and freethinker. (1803-1882) <ref>http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/ralphwaldoemerson.html </ref> Expressed visceral public disapproval of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Exhorted people to "do the duty of the hour", and support abolition.
*[[William Lloyd Garrison]], anti-slavery editor of the Liberator (1805 - 1879); the single most imfluential abolitionist <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/966/000049819/</ref> Founded the Liberator with partner Isaac Knapp in 1831.
*[[Elizur Wright]], abolitionist, freethinker. (1804-1885) <ref> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0852788.html</ref> Became involved in the abolitionist movement while attending Yale university. Eventually worked as a secretary with the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833 and assumed the editorship of the Massachusetts Abolitionist in 1839.
*[[John Brown]] (1800-1859), tried to lead a slave rebellion in 1859; the slaves did not join him, but white Southerners became convinced there were many more John Browns to come if they stayed in the Union
*[[John Stuart Mill]], philosopher, essayist. (1806 - 1879) <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/147/000030057/</ref> Wrote numerous essays on abolition during the American Civil War. Asserted the war was being fought to abolish slavery, an unpopular political opinion at the time.

==Biblical Perspective==
{{main|Slavery in the Bible}}
[[File:Alma - Tadema The Finding of Moses 1904.jpg|thumb|360px|[[Sir Lawrence Alma Tadema]], The Finding of Moses, 1904.]]
Slavery was an well-established institution throughout the Ancient Near East, and the
[[Old Testament]] sanctions its form of regulated slavery, though that is seen as being counter cultural in its degree of amelioration, including as compared to that of ancient slave states as Greece and Rome, and the typical practice of slavery in American history.<ref>[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html ''Does God condone slavery in the Bible?'']</ref><ref>[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslavent.html ''The issue of 'slavery' in the NT/Apostolic world'']</ref> The New Testament does not condemn the institution itself, but makes requirements upon both masters and slaves in further improving treatment in the inherited economic institution.

Slave owners in the antebellum South cited both Old Testament and New Testament texts, such as Ephesians 6:5, “slaves, obey your masters”, in arguments for the Christian endorsement of slavery. Another Bible verse states that thieves should be sold into slavery.<ref>Exodus 22:3 "He should make a full restitution; and if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.</ref> Under the [[Mosaic Law]], Hebrew slaves could be kept for six years, and offered release in the seventh for nothing. They were to be treated as hired servants, and generous provisions given to them at termination, though they could choose to be lifetime servants. However, daughters who were sold to be betrothed to the owner or his son, were not set free in their seventh year but were to be allowed to be redeemed if that marriage had not taken place done. If marriage occurred, they were to be set free if the husband was negligent in his basic marital obligations.(Exodus 21:1-11; cf. Dt. 15:12-18)

The system of slavery commonly diminished a person to the point where they would be regarded as a thing or an object to be owned. The Christian [[abolitionists]] disagreed with this valuation, and saw the New Testament in particular, and its ethos of love for neighbor as oneself, as supporting the abolition of slavery, and advanced an interpretation of the Bible which presented human value in terms of God's parental love for all people as His children (see [[human rights]]).<ref>[http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/bourne/bourne.html Bourne, George, 1780-1845, ''A Condensed Anti-Slavery Bible Argument; By a Citizen of Virginia'']</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=3n4OGC-OoqIC&dq=God+Against+Slavery+George+B.+Cheever,&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=YCiuzJHs7T&sig=GyTdW1UZEO6eqV6XxdKv2v_SJF8&hl=en&ei=oaWRSvHyJpPDlAeXqdCjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false George B. Cheever, ''God Against Slavery'' (1875)]</ref>

While requiring Christian obedience <ref>''Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible'', Eph. 6:7; cf. Rm. 13:1</ref> of slaves toward their masters, the New Testament also requires masters to exercise their duties in the fear of God, and prohibits threatening, abuse or unequal pay for slaves. ((Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1) (1Cor. 7:21) It also commands slaves to obtain freedom if possible, and contains the record of the [[apostle Paul]] requiring that the escaped slave Onesimus be received back by his master Philemon, no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved", even as Paul himself (Philemon 1:16,17)

[[Pat Robertson]], while acknowledging the Old Testament's teachings on slavery, argues that "we have moved in our conception of the value of human beings over the years" until we have realized that slavery is "terribly wrong."<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-DtlRyvC34 Pat Robertson on the Bible and slavery]</ref>

===Curse of Ham===
Some Southern white theologians before the Civil War asserted that the slavery of blacks was the result the curse of Ham. However, there is no evidence that the curse had to do with skin color, and the descendants of [[Canaan]] most likely were not black, and it is generally concluded that they did not settle in [[Africa]].<ref>http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=70</ref><ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/race-blacks.html</ref><ref>Full Life Study Bible, Zondervan Publishing Company (September 1992)</ref><ref>A Condensed Anti-slavery Bible Argument By George Bourne </ref>

==Further reading==
* [[Abolitionism]]
* [[American Civil War]]

===Reference===
* Finkelman, Paul, and Joseph C. Miller, eds. ''Macmillan Encyclopedia of World Slavery'' (1999), very good reference
* Morgan, Kenneth. ''Slavery and the British Empire: From Africa to America'' (2008) [http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-British-Empire-Africa-America/dp/0192892916/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241544745&sr=1-5 excerpt and text search]
* Parish, Peter J. '' Slavery: History and Historians'' (1989) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/slavery-history-and-historians-by-peter-j-parish.jsp online edition]
* Rodriguez, Junius P., ed. ''The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery'' (2 vol. 1997), very good reference
===Rome===
* Bradley, Keith. ''Slavery and Society at Rome'' (1994) [http://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Society-Themes-Ancient-History/dp/0521378877/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254513594&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Westermann, William L. ''The Slave Systems of Greek and Roman Antiquity'' 91955) 182pp [http://www.questia.com/read/3797806?title=The%20Slave%20Systems%20of%20Greek%20and%20Roman%20Antiquity online edition]

===United States===
* Fogel, Robert. ''Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery'' (1989) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/without-consent-or-contract-the-rise-and-fall-of-american-slavery-by-robert-william-fogel.jsp online edition]
* Genovese, Eugene. ''Roll Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made'' (1974), the most important book, written as Genovese was moving from Marxism to conservatism
* Miller, Randall M., and John David Smith, eds. ''Dictionary of Afro-American Slavery'' (1988), exellent reference
* Phillips, Ulrich B. ''American Negro Slavery: A Survey of the Supply, Employment and Control of Negro Labor as Determined by the Plantation Regime'' (1918), the best older history; leftists complain it does not share their biases. [http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/11490 free edition online]

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

==External links==
*[http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/black-slavery-and-islamic-racism/ Islamic Slavery and Racism]

[[Category:Black History]]
[[Category:The South]]
[[Category:Civil Rights]]
[[Category:British Empire]]
[[Category:African History]]

Seleucid Empire

2016-01-23T19:12:57Z

Sunda62: List of the kings of Syria

The '''Seleucid Empire''' (323BC – 63BC) was the largest successor state to [[Alexander the Great]]'s empire. It spanned the region from modern-day [[Israel]] to the [[Indus Valley]], and as far north as [[Turkmenistan]]. Hellenistic culture was heavily preserved in the Seleucid empire, leading to an interesting mix of [[Greek mythology]] and [[Zoroastrianism]] as the main religions of the empire.

== List of seleucid emperors ==
This list was compiled by french christian  historian [[Nicolas Lenglet Dufresnoy]] in his book ''Tablettes chronologiques de l'histoire universelle'' (1745) as the ''Kings of Syria''. It does not include data that was found after the [[cuneiform language]] was rediscovered in the [[XIX century]]. Sources digititalized by [[Google Books]]:
* [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=OvEOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA149&f=false French original]
* [http://books.google.com.br/books?id=61oQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131&f=false English translation]

{| class="wikitable" cellpadding=2 cellspacing=2
|-
! with=150px | # !! width=107px | !! width=150px | Start !! width=150px | Duration !! width=150px | Notes
|-
|-
|align=center| 1 || '''[[Seleucus Nicator]]'''
|| [[312 BC]] || 31 || ||
|-
|align=center| 2 || '''[[Antiochus Soter]]'''
|| [[282 BC]] || 20 ||
|-
|align=center| 3 || '''[[Antiochus Theos]]'''
|| [[262 BC]] || 15 ||
|-
|align=center| 4 || '''[[Seleucus II Callinicus]]'''
|| [[247 BC]] || 20 ||
|-
|align=center| 5 || '''[[Seleucus III Ceraunos]]'''
|| [[227 BC]] || 3 ||
|-
|align=center| 6 || '''[[Antiochus II The Great]]'''
|| [[224 BC]] || 37 ||
|-
|align=center| 7 || '''[[Seleucus IV Philopator]]'''
|| [[187 BC]] || 11 ||
|-
|align=center| 8 || '''[[Antiochus IV Epiphanes]]'''
|| [[176 BC]] || 12 ||
|-
|align=center| 9 || '''[[Antiochus V Eupator]]'''
|| [[164 BC]] || 2 || Under his guardian Lysias
|-
|align=center| 10 || '''[[Demetrius Soter]]'''
|| [[162 BC]] || 11 ||
|-
|align=center| 11 || '''[[Alexander Bala]]'''
|| [[151 BC]] || 5 ||
|-
|align=center| 12 || '''[[Demetrius II Nicator]]'''
|| [[146 BC]] || 1 ||
|-
|align=center| 13 || '''[[Antiochus, son of Bala]]'''
|| [[145 BC]] || 2 ||
|-
|align=center| 14 || '''[[Diodotus Tryphon]]'''
|| [[143 BC]] || 4 ||
|-
|align=center| 15 || '''[[Antiochus VII Sidetes]]'''
|| [[139 BC]] || 9 ||
|-
|align=center| 12 || '''[[Demetrius II Nicator]]'''
|| [[131 BC]] || 4 || Restored
|-
|align=center| 16 || '''[[Alexander Zabynas]]'''
|| [[129 BC]] || - || The tyrant
|-
|align=center| 18 || '''[[Seleucus V]]'''
|| [[127 BC]] || 1 ||
|-
|align=center| 19 || '''[[Antiochus VIII Grypus]]'''
|| [[126 BC]]|| 12 ||
|-
|align=center| 20 || '''[[Antiochus IX from Cyzicus]]'''
|| [[114 BC]] || 18 ||
|-
|align=center| 21|| '''[[Seleucus VI]]'''
|| [[97 BC]] || 2 || Son of Grypus
|-
|align=center| 22 || '''[[Antiochus X]]'''
|| [[95 BC]] || 1 || Son of Cyzicus (sic)
|-
|align=center| 22 || '''[[Antíoco XI]]'''
|| [[94 BC]] || || not included as king
|-
|align=center| 23 || '''Phillip''', '''[[Demetrius III]]''', '''[[Antiochus XII]]'''
|| [[93 BC]] || || in war
|-
|align=center| 24 || '''[[Tigranes, the Great|Tigranes]]'''
|| [[84 BC]] || 18 || [[66 BC]]: Tigranes was defeated by the romans
|-
|align=center| 25 || '''[[Antiochus XII]]'''
|| [[69 BC]] || ||
|}

In 63 BC, Syria becomes a [[roman province]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.livius.org/se-sg/seleucids/seleucids.html The Seleucid Empire], by Jona Lendering.

[[Category:Ancient History]]
[[Category:Empires]]

Adversus Christianos

2015-12-11T00:55:13Z

Sunda62: Knowest thine enemies

'''''Adversus Christianos''''', latin for ''Against Christians'', is a set of fifteen books written in Sicily by pagan philosopher [[Porphyrius]] ([[233]] AD -c.[[303]])<ref>The birthday is given in ''A New and General Biographical Dictionary'', where it's also said he lived about seventy years.</ref>, considered the most able and most bitter adversary the early christians ever knew. These books were burned in [[448]] under emperor [[Teodosius]], after they were banned in the [[Council of Ephesus]].<ref name=blount>[[Thomas-Pope Blount]], ''Censura Celebrorum Authorum'', p.145 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=yMi2oarWKIsC&pg=PA145&f=false (latin text)]</ref> <ref name=dictionary>''A New and General Biographical Dictionary'', Volume X, p.1 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=eacDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA2&f=false (english text)]</ref> <ref name=lynam>Rev. [[Robert Lynam]], ''The British Essayists'', Volume 23, p.48 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=JTxTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA48&f=false (english text)]</ref>

These books were soon refuted by [[Eusebius]] and [[Methodius]], and latter by [[Apollinarius]] (in [[345]]) and [[Philostorgius]] (in [[425]]); but neither the books nor the four replics have survived. Based on [[Hortensius]]'s biography of Porphyrius, it can be inferred that the purpose of these books was to prove that the [[Book of Daniel]] was not a prophetic text, but that it related events that happened to the kings of Syria and Egypt <ref>Respectively, the [[Seleucid]] and [[Ptolemaic]] dinasties that ruled these areas after the Empire of [[Alexander the Great]] was partitioned among his generals.</ref> and was written '''after''' the historical facts.<ref name=erskine>[[John Erskine]], ''Sketches Ad Hints of Church History, and Theological Controversy'', Volume 1, p.187 [https://books.google.com.br/books?id=JOIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA187&f=false (english text)]</ref>

Porphyrius, in the twelfth book of ''Adversus Christianos'', was the first to attack the authenticity of the [[Book of Daniel]] and his arguments have been repeated since that time by many scholars. The core of this attack is that Daniel's prophecies are exact to the minute details, so they are not prophecies at all, but they were written by some Pseudo-Daniel living during the time of these events. Daniel was written during the reign of [[Antiochus Epiphanes]], in Greek, and that "Daniel did not so much predict future events as narrate past ones". <ref name=john.king>[[John King]], translator of [[John Calvin]]'s ''Calvin's Commentaries'', ''Translator's Preface'', ''Authenticity of the Book of Daniel'' [http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc24/cc24001.htm (english text)]</ref>

Porphyrius's arguments, that survived only in the text of [[Jerome]],<ref name=john.king /> are: <ref name=jerome>[[Jerome]], ''Commentary on Daniel'' [http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_daniel_02_text.htm (english text)]</ref>

* ''Daniel was not composed by the person to whom it is ascribed in its title, but rather by some individual living in Judaea at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.''

* ''Daniel did not foretell the future so much as he related the past.''

* ''Whatever he spoke of up till the time of Antiochus contained authentic history, whereas anything he may have conjectured beyond that point was false, inasmuch as he would not have foreknown the future.''

* ''Daniel does not belong to the Hebrew Scriptures, since it was composed in Greek''

* ''[[Nebuchadnezzar]], a very proud king, would have never fallen on his face and worshipped Daniel'' (Dan 2.47)

* ''The queen, wife of King [[Belshazzar]], knew more about past events than the king, which is absurd'' (Dan 5.10)

* ''The events after Dan 11.24, which correspond to the date of the composition of the text, are all wrong''

Some of these arguments were easily dismissed as soon as they were made, for example, the argument about the queen being Belshazzar's wife, instead of his mother or grandmother, and of the king worshipping Daniel, instead of the God of Whom Daniel was the voice.<ref name=jerome /> The argument about the non-canonicity of Daniel was dismissed when parts of the book were found among the [[Dead Sea Scrolls]].<ref>[http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls?locale=en_US ''Fragments of every book of the Hebrew Bible (except the Book of Esther) were found in the Qumran caves, the most famous of the Dead Sea Scrolls sites'']</ref> Other arguments required modern techniques, for example, there are modern mathematical models that can date a text based on the language used, and Daniel is not a text that corresponds to the reing of Antiochus, but rather to the time of Babylonian hegemony or the reign of [[Cyrus the Great]].<ref name=daniel>See the reference section in the article about the [[Book of Daniel]]</ref> And even if Daniel were written at the time of Antiochus, it still contains some predictions, like the arrival of the Messiah in Jerusalem, and the total destruction of this city, so it would be a very weak argument to suppose that Daniel was false in claiming to be a prediction of events during the reign of Antiochus while being accurate for events that happened about two centuries later.<ref name=daniel />

== References ==
<references />

Talk:James Ussher

2015-12-05T00:16:40Z

Sunda62: /* Quote from Ussher */ new section

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

== RodWeather's edit ==

RodWeather added: ''Regardless, Ussher's calculations were somewhat accurate, and the roughly 6000 year age of the world has been built upon by more recent scholarship and backed up by recent scientific research in [[creation science]].''

I have a few problems with this:
* The first part about the calculations being accurate is expressing an opinion. I agree with the opinion, and Conservapedia does express opinions at times, but we should keep it to a minimum and I don't think it's necessary in this case.
* The bit about being built upon by more recent scholarship is rather vague as to what it's referring to. As worded at the moment I don't think it means much, but perhaps it could be made clearer.
* Creation science has produced lots of evidence that is more consistent with a "young" Earth than one billions of years old, but they don't claim to be able to support ''scientifically'' an age as specific as around 6,000 years.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:13, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

== Quote from Ussher ==

People keep repeating this error forever. Ussher's words:
<blockquote>
Moreover we find that the years of our forefathers, the years of the ancient Egyptians and
Hebrews were the same length as the Julian Year. It consisted of 12 months containing 30 days.
(It cannot be proved that the Hebrews used lunar months before the Babylonian captivity.) 5
days were added to the 12th month each year. Every 4 years, 6 days were added to the 12th
month. I have noted the continual passing of these years, as set forth in the Bible. Hence the end
of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the beginning of his son Evilmerodach's reign was in the 3442
year of the world. (3442 AM) By collation of Chaldean history and the astronomical cannon it
was in the 85 year of Nabonasar. This was 562 BC. or 4152 JP. (Julian Period) From this I
deduce that the creation of the world happened in the beginning of the autumn of 710 JP. {d}
Using astronomical tables, I determined the first Sunday after the autumnal equinox for the year
710 JP which was October 23 of that year. I ignored the stopping of the sun, in the days of
Joshua and the going back of it in the days of Hezekiah. (See the notes in my Annals for 2553
AM and 3291 AM) From thence I concluded, that from the preceding evening of October 23,
marks the first day of creation and the start of time.
</blockquote>
So, Ussher's date of Creation was '''not''' 23 Oct, but 22 Oct in the proleptic Julian Calendar. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] ([[User talk:Sunda62|talk]]) 19:16, 4 December 2015 (EST)

James Ussher

2015-12-05T00:12:41Z

Sunda62: The date from Ussher is the "Jewish day" that corresponds to 23 Oct 4004, and the jewish days begins at sunset (a hypothetical sunset, since there was no sun)

[[Image:James_Ussher.jpg|right|thumb]]
[[James Ussher]] (b. 4 January 1581, fl. 1625, d. 21 March 1656) was [[Archbishop]] of [[Armagh]] and [[bishop|Primate]] of All [[Ireland]]. He is best known for his massive compendium of ancient history, ''[[The Annals of the World]],'' in which he attempted to calculate the number of years that had elapsed since [[date of creation|creation]].

== Life and Career ==
Ussher was born in [[Dublin]], [[Ireland]]. He determined early to pursue a career with the [[Church of England]], a resolve quite similar to that of the [[Bible|Biblical]] Judge, [[Samuel]].

He entered Dublin University at the age of 18, and at 20 achieved ordination as a deacon and priest. At 26, he became Professor and Chairman of the Department of Divinity at Dublin University, and held his professorship from 1609 to 1621. In 1625, he became Archbishop of Armagh, an office he apparently held until his death. In 1628, King James made him a Privy Councillor.

He was considered well-read and well-versed in history, a subject that soon became his primary focus. He wrote several histories of the doings of the Irish and [[England|English]] churches dating back to [[Rome|Roman]] times. He also made himself an expert in [[Semitic]] languages, an expertise that informed his argument in favor of the [[Masoretic Text]] of the [[Bible]] in preference to the [[Septuagint]].

Ussher's ''Confessions'' appeared in 1643, followed in 1646 by his fifth work, ''Here I Stand''. His most famous work, the dating of the creation as calculated from the Biblical record, appeared in writing in the 1650s.

He died in 1656. [[Lord Protector]] [[Oliver Cromwell]] honored him with a [[state funeral]] and a burial in [[Westminster Abbey]]. His extensive library of manuscripts, many of them Middle Eastern originals, became part of the collection at Dublin University.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074527/James-Ussher James Ussher in the Encylopedia Britannica online]</ref>

== Arguments for Biblical Chronology ==
As mentioned, Ussher is best known for his [[chronology]] of events in the Bible and other events recorded outside it. Ussher assumed, first of all, that the Bible was the most reliable, if not the only reliable, source for the events that it records. This included the lengths of the lives of [[Abraham]] and his ancestors, and of [[Isaac]], [[Jacob]], and the line of [[Judah]], including especially the [[House of David|Davidic]] dynasty of the [[Southern Kingdom]] of [[Israel]].

In deciding how to synchronize the [[Christian]] or ''[[Anno Domini]]'' era with an era using [[Creation]] itself as its [[epoch]], Ussher chose the death of [[Nebuchadnezzar II]] as the anchor point and worked backward from that date through the Bible. Thus he calculated the date of Creation as equivalent to the sunset that preceded 23 October, 4004 BC. So influential was Ussher that for centuries his chronology was included in every printed edition of the [[King James Version]] of the Bible.

Regardless, Ussher's calculations were somewhat accurate, and the roughly 6000 year age of the world has been built upon by more recent scholarship and backed up by recent scientific research in [[creation science]].

=== Objections ===
The obvious objections that secular historians have against Ussher's chronology (or any similar chronology) follow from their notion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and not merely six thousand or so years old. That, however, is a [[circular reasoning|circular argument]], as the notion of a 4.6-billion-year-old Earth is based on a prior rejection of the Biblical account.

The Biblical objections to Ussher's particular chronology are more serious, however.
They turn on Ussher's interpretation of certain passages, such as {{Bible ref|book=Galatians|chap=3|verses=17|version=NASB}} and {{Bible ref|book=Ezekiel|chap=4|verses=5|version=NASB}}, that separate certain key events in Hebrew history. Happily, Ussher left copious notes detailing his methods and his arguments. Today [[Larry Pierce]],<ref>[[Larry Pierce|Pierce, Larry]], "The Forgotten Archbishop," Appendix B of James Ussher, ''[[The Annals of the World]],'' Larry and Marion Pierce, eds., Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2003, pp. 891-2, ISBN 0890513600</ref> who undertook to translate the ''Annals'' into English from their original [[Latin]], has prepared vigorous defenses of Ussher and his work. While not all of Ussher's calculations might be able to stand (see [[Biblical chronology dispute]] for details), his notes at least inform modern readers of the basis of his calculations and enable them to construct a Biblical corrective.

==== The Divided Kingdoms: How Long Was Their History? ====
Centuries after Ussher died, [[Edwin R. Thiele]]<ref>[[Edwin R. Thiele|Thiele, Edwin R.]], ''The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings''</ref> attempted a revision of the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms [[Northern Kingdom|Northern]] and [[Southern Kingdom|Southern]] to make them comport to generally accepted dates from [[Assyrian chronology]]. The effect of Thiele's proposed corrective is to shorten the history of the Divided Kingdoms by forty-five years--but that figure is actually closer than at least two other disputed figures in Ussher's calculations. Moreover, it suggests that the [[Exodus]] from [[Egypt]] took place in 1446 BC--the "Early Date"--and not 1290 BC, the "Late Date" in current widespread [[Archaeology|archaeological]] favor. Ussher calculates the Exodus as occurring in 1491 BC.

Pierce, since 2003, has led a counterattack against Thiele and has argued for the primacy of Scripture over any archaeological find, no matter how allegedly strong the evidence might appear to be. His primary--indeed only--quarrel with Thiele concerns the history of the Northern Kingdom and alleged synchronies between Kings [[Ahab]] and [[Jehu]] of that kingdom and King [[Sennacherib III]] of [[Assyria]]--synchronies that Ussher did not mention, because the Bible did not mention them.

== References ==
<references/>

== External Links ==

*[http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/E-Books/christ/ussher/ussherindex.htm E-Book - The Annals of The World]

[[Category:Religious People|Ussher, James]]

User:Sunda62

2015-10-16T16:39:16Z

Sunda62: About my ban five years ago

In 2010, after many years collaborating with this site in articles that verged on the topics of mathematics, physics, chemistry, brazilian culture and brazilian history, among others, I was banned for "five years", which probably was meant to be infinite, under the alleged pretext "Using anonymous proxy: U.K troll using Brazilian IP's to argue and disrupt. Bye"

So, now that I'm temporarily unbanned, I want to comment on this ban.

First, about the "U.K". Probably my spelling (where I carelessly mix american and european English) and my use of International Units (meters, kilograms, etc) instead of the units that were based on the satanistic idea that the Kings were divine beings and should be used to measure all things (an idea that, AFAIK, comes from pederasts of the Classical Era of Greece) were an indication that I was not "american" under the strict definition that american = native born USA citizen. But the inference that I was from England is surely a leap of illogic.

For the "anonymous proxy" and "Brazilian IPs" part, I think that it should be obvious to any rational person who had done a minimal analysis of my posts that, posting a lot about Brazil and using brazilian IPs, I was posting from Brazil. Also, it should be very simple to just check those IPs, and see that they were not proxies (BTW, don't bother to check this new IP; I changed internet providers, it's a new one).

I won't even comment on the "argue and disrupt" part. Just check my history.

Finally, I had to think about the "troll" part. Frankly, I didn't see in any of my edits nor in any comment I ever made any glimpse of trolling. But I came to the conclusion that this wiki is run by fanatics, the kind of people that form ISIS, feminazi groups or the communist guerrillas. And for fanatics, anyone that is not subservient must be an enemy - and a troll.

So, ban me again. This time for infinity - if you believe in this mathematical concept.

Bye.

Pele

2010-09-30T01:34:53Z

Sunda62: written Pelé in Portuguese, and a little bit more about him

'''Pelé''' (born Edson Arantes do Nascimento<ref>http://who2.com/pele.html</ref>) was a [[Brazil|Brazilian]] [[soccer]] player who spent time in the U.S. with the New York Cosmos. Most consider him the greatest soccer player ever.

He played in the World Cups of 1958, 1962, 1966 and 1970. In 1962 and 1966, he was injured, in the latter due to the violence of the adversaries. Brazil won the 1958, 1962 and 1970 World Cups.

For the most past of his career, he played in [[Santos Futebol Clube]], a soccer team of [[Santos]], in the state of [[São Paulo]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Athletes]]
[[Category:Brazil]]
[[Category:Soccer]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-09-29T18:08:23Z

Sunda62: /* Wave particle Duality */

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I wanted to fix the formatting here, but it has already been locked. So I guess maybe you could do it, Conservative? I was going to change the final sentence from being a single huge link, to only having one word linked, or possibly made a reference.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 20:21, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks but I prefer it be the way it is as the [[CreationWiki]] article is the best article on the internet on the subject in my estimation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:24, 25 May 2008 (EDT)
:::: Is that the reason for the redundant link? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:34, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

==Counter-argument==
RE: The bible prohibits homosexuality because of diseases. One, if God did not want homosexuality, then it seems more probable that the diseases would be the result of His dislike, rather than vice versa. More likely reasons for why God would prohibit homosexuality would be either, one, that He designed men and women to copulate together, therefore to copulate in an unintended way is abhorrent, or two, two men who are homosexual and are not married are two less people who could have contributed to increasing the overall size of the population of the Ancient Hebrews, at a time where their survival was a daily worry, and a large population would have helped many of their problems (that was a run-on sentence, and I do apologize). Either way, it seems unlikely that the ban on homosexuality is because of the diseases associated with it. [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 16:58, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

There is much more that needs to be discussed:

The paragraph about blood-letting
is completely off-topic. The article is about providing scientific knowledge, that was already in the bible long before scientists found them. This whole paragraph has nothing to do with it. It just says, that Pilate was surprised about the quick death of Jesus but he himself had no explanation for it. So the fact that the loss of blood hastens death was not known by the author or at least he deemed it too insignificant to mention it.

Maximum human height:
Goliaths height is still absurd considering he was supposed to be some kind of warrior. The reason Robert Wadlow grew that big, was because of a pituitary adenoma. And he required leg splints for walking, because of his weakened bones. Someone like this would be utterly unqualified to be the lead fighter of an army.
:''Robert Wadlow is cited because of his height and the symptoms related to his height, not because of his weakened legs. Goliath is written in the Bible as having one of those symptoms, but as to his legs he was not Wadlow, nor was he the exact same as any other man who had that condition. Part of his armor was a pair of bronze grieves strapped to his legs; if necessary, they would have doubled as braces...provided he had weakened legs.''
::Alright, now I get it.

Feasibility of Abiogenesis:
No, abiogenesis is not the process of forming life from nothing. It's the theory of forming life from simple organic molecules.
Also the sentence "God creates life from nothing" is far from "depicting clearly". It just gives rise to many more questions like "How did God create that life?"
:''You're changing the very meaning of the word here, when it was used for generations to describe life spontaneously arising from non-life[http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp]. As to your assumption about God, the Bible is very clear on the act of Creation: He spoke it into existence. If I was to say to the hat "make a rabbit come out" and the rabbit did just that, then I would have spoke it into existence; but since I am not God, I cannot create something from nothing.''
::Ok, but "non-life" is still far from being just "nothing" as mentioned in the article. It seemed to me like you are mixing the Big Bang theory with abiogenesis, which are completely different things. So "He spoke it into existence." And that doesn't give rise to question of what it is, that lets God do that, or what is behind the ability of "speaking something into existence"? For you this is just supernatural and therefore not comprehensible by our natural means and that's it? I'm sorry, if that sounds like something from a douche. I apologize if it happens to be that questions like those are considered inappropriate.

Earth free floating in space:
Yes, it's clearly in the bible that "god hangs the earth on nothing". However, it is not entirely clear, whether the author of that text really meant with "nothing" the vacuum. I think that in ancient times people referred even to air as being "nothing". After all it was Otto von Guericke in 1654 who proofed with his Experiment, the "Magdeburger hemispheres", the existence of our atmosphere.
:''And the writers of the Bible should have been experimenting instead of writing?''
::I didn't suggest that, I just meant that we cannot know if he, the writer, meant with "nothing" really nothing (vacuum) or just air. Vacuum is a very abstract thing. It's not occurring naturally and its existence is therefor not obvious. I just mentioned the "Magdeburger hemispheres" experiment to make it clear that in the past there were times, when "nothing" and "air" were synonymous. And if the author thought that God hung the earth into air (instead of really nothing/vacuum), then this paragraph about the earth floating in space is also off-topic, has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge and should be removed. I mean, surely this site is not being edited by amateurs isn't it?

Meteorites:
This is completely out of context. Nowhere is there mentioned that those "great mountains burning with fire" are basically nothing more than the shooting stars that one can see at night, only bigger. Furthermore it's not fire that lights meteorites but black body radiation from frictional heat with the atmosphere.
:''And to an earth-bound mortal without the benefit of schooling, meteorites would look exactly like those "great mountains burning with fire."''
::Ok, I give you that. But if you see it that way, then this is unscientific. It also hasn't got anything to do with scientific foreknowledge then. It's just a statement, that someone observed a meteorite and therefor is off-topic in this article.

Stellar proper movement:
I don't understand this. Not a single sane religious person would have had the guts to tell from this, that the stars that make up Orion's belt are moving apart from each other before the proper observations were made. The phrase "Among those challenges, two are remarkable:" sounds like there are thousands of challenges mentioned but in only two cases Job was lucky and guessed right. How can we hope from this to gain knowledge just from reading the bible?
:''Try reading the Bible as an historical record concerning the salvation of man from sin through Jesus Christ instead.''
::But then, what is that scientific knowledge from the bible good for? You guys are using this to show, that the people's minds of those who wrote the bible were many centuries ahead of their time, right? But the thing is, you are always interpreting the bible that way, after science has caught up. Job named some challenges that really no man can do, I get this point. But I think it's only coincidence, that these actions are happening in the way Job guessed them. I don't think that Job himself knew, that Orion's belt is really almost literally "unfolding". And therefore this is again off-topic and has nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge. And if in some miraculous way Job really did know that Orion's belt is unfolding, then shouldn't all those other challenges, not only those two in particular, also be true? You see, I have no doubts about Job's genius but I believe, that if he did not just randomly guess those challenges, that he would not be deceitfully mixing true facts in between utter nonsense.
::''tldr:'' There are several ways now on how to proceed: 1.) Acknowledging that this paragraph has got nothing to do with scientific foreknowledge, because Job only guessed them and had no evidence for them. 2.) Leaving the paragraph as it is, but believing in Jobs sincerity and also declaring all those other challenges as scientific foreknowledge. 3.) Acknowledging that Job tried to deceive us, because he mixed in true facts with nonsense.

Existence of the Jet Stream:
The Jet Stream goes from west to east by the way.

Existence of dinosaurs:
How can we know that from the bible? The only things the bible tells us about the behemoth are (Job 40:15-24):
- that "He eats grass like an ox."
- "He moves his tail like a cedar" whatever that is supposed to mean
- "His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron."
Why could that NOT be an elephant or an hippopotamus. This description is way to vague.
:''And the description is too vague to be an elephant or a hippo. Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well as Job; he was educated in the highest court of Egypt; he has seen both elephants and hippos, and his description of the behemoth just doesn't match either animal. Neither has a tail that looks like a cedar, and the branches of cedar trees are pretty big.''
::Okay, if you mean that Job would have had a word for elephant or hippopotamus at hand instead of "behemoth" that we would recognize as such, then I can agree with you.

Lions' killing methods:
Citation needed. The german wikipedia says that lions bite the necks of small animals and clamp the trachea of bigger animals with their jaws.
:''The German Wikipedia is subject to editing by amateurs.''
::Okay, but the content of this paragraph is still in need of a citation, because we don't really want anyone to think that conservapedia is subject to editing by amateurs, don't we. I just can't believe this particular paragraph without an objective source.

Engineering examples:
Whoever put this in, has he read those biblical verses that foretell those engineering examples? I just read Revelation 9:1-11 in hope to read something about submarines. You should also do that and think about it. Nevertheless, if something like this is suggested, you should directly provide said biblical verses.
:''The writer of Revelation was speaking in the terms he knew; he saw a vision of warfare in the future, for example, and he wrote "chariots"; he didn't know the words "tank" or "jeep" or "submarine" or "MiG 25".''
::It is claimed that these verses are a foretelling of submarines. I just don't buy it by reading the mentioned biblical verses. Why would the author use a comparison with locusts and not something bigger, without wings, something that would be a better resemblance to a submarine. Why did he call them even locusts and not "some strange things like locusts". If I would assume that this passage really is a foretelling of submarines, then I would come to the conclusion that the author is trying do deceive me by calling his visions really locusts. And even if I'm completely wrong about this (which could be entirely true), because I'm not smart enough to see the submarines in that passage, you should still provide the verses directly inside this article, that suggest the foretelling of those engineering examples.

Again, it a case of someone clutching at straws, trying to make contradictions where none exist. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)
:I do not try to make contradictions. I'm generally trying to point out that some of the things mentioned here are off-topic or are lacking citations.

== Examples? ==

Where are the examples of the Christian Bible detailing scientific knowledge? Is the prohibition of homosexuality the lone example? {{unsigned|Zeitgeisted}}

Yeah, you're forgetting how many times it was wrong, like how it said that the earth was flat, that the sun went around the earth, and that the moon was unreachable, and that you could make a tower to physically reach heaven, just to name a few.
--[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 16:00, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It is not simply the bible that is full of inspired scientific foresight. Divinely inspired authors such as Jules Verne or scientists such as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky saw technological glimpses centuries ahead of their time. Given the abundance of science fiction and scientific papers, one cannot help but see God's hand in the revelation of technological advances. God's ability to reveal technological glimpses of the future is only distantly rivaled by Satan's ability to pervert God's teachings with concepts like homosexuality, atheism, and evolution, which are clearly not divinely inspired concepts.
Other great scientists, like Albert Einstein, were clearly divinely inspired, seeing details of the universe that defied intuition of other scientists of his day, and could not have been known without the direct intervention of god. The mathematical techniques that Einstein built upon were developed by God for centuries under the guise of Lorentz, Gauss, Riemann, and others. The fact that the Bible did not specifically foresee the development of the computer revolution, the standard model of particle physics, the automobile, airplanes, or high oil prices is simply a function of its limited text, with verbosity suppressed in order to provide a more accessible text for mankind.

This page is a joke right. It includes one lone example that itself is somewhat dodgy. Homosexual people on average have a greater number of STI's than the heterosexual population, but surely this is more because during the 80's it was assumed that homosexual men didn't need to use condoms, thus increasing the spread of disease.
We also make the point at this time that statistical information of this nature isn't actually scientific knowledge. If the bible said "God created light, such that it would always travel at the same speed" that would be impressive. This is not.

==Atheism==

What does that have to do with bible scientific foreknowledge? I assume it's a mistake and I'll be removing it shortly. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 00:04, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
:I was ''going'' to remove it, since it's quite inappropriate, but I failed to notice that the article has been locked, for no apparent reason except that it falls under Conservative's atheism pet project. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 23:00, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

==A Thought==

I won't offer you a deep philosohpical argument on why I feel that this article does more harm to the Christian cause than it does good, I will merely state what affect it had for me, browsing this website. When I found this page I was exploring the entries on atheism, with interest on why there was such a concentration on communism, as if to imply by analogy that the tens of millions of innocent deaths from Communist regimes have a bad influence on atheist, and I found this page. The problem is merely it smacks of desparation, or clutching at straws.

:Surely you mean "desperation", not "desparation". ;-) [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:44, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Not until it's done ==

I like where this article is going, but for the moment is is terribly unfinished and perhaps shouldn't be present quite yet? I'm currently working on a degree in Christian Theology so I'd be glad to help, and can offer a few examples, but we would really need a trained eye to comb through the Bible for this sort of thing. May I suggest going through the Old Law and deducting the practical reasons those laws existed? An example, just off the top of my head, would be the prohibition of eating pork due to the dangers in eating improperly cooked pork. Another example is that the curse given to Adam in Genesis, "remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return", coupled with how Man was formed, could be taken as an early description of the carbon cycle.

Secondly, it may be prudent to keep a keen focus on the theological and historical context of each reference where appropriate. I noticed someone mention earlier "building a tower to Heaven", obviously missing that this was said of those building the tower, not God. This misunderstanding of the Tower of Babel story is a great example of what I mean here: we need people that realize that the tower was destroyed as its purpose was as a landmark for man to stay all together, violating God's command for man to "spread to all the corners of the earth." It had nothing to do with their possibly reaching Heaven. When looking for examples, we need to be wary of making mistakes such as that. Sorry for all the paraphrasing :-P

Forgive me if I didn't sign or post this properly, as I'm new to all this. [[User:Rev|Rev]] 16:47, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

== Creation Ministries International and scientific foreknowledge ==

I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the claim that CMI supports the idea of scientific foreknowledge, given that they include it on their list of "doubtful" arguments. While they don't dismiss it out of hand, they certainly don't seem to embrace the concept, either:

'':There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.’ We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.
''

(Creation Ministries International, "What Arguments are Doubtful, Hence Inadvisable to Use?")

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:55, 27 November 2009 (EST)
::::Creation Ministries International believes in the judicious use of biblical scientific foreknowledge claims and here is an example: http://creation.com/modern-medicine I agree with them that you have to be judicious and use sound exegesis. For the most part, except for a statement they made concerning the Mosaic law, the [http://creationwiki.org/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge CreationWiki article on Bible scientific foreknowledge] is very good and very comprehensive. With a few alterations, I would have liked to copy the CreationWiki article over to Conservapedia, but the fairly restrictive GNU license prevented that. Sometimes people get overzealous in making Bible scientific foreknowledge claims and that is the reason why I have not edited the article in a long time as I decided a while back that sooner or later I was going to butt heads with another editor or editors and I decided that I wanted to spend my time addressing other priorities instead. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:25, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

== Beginning of the universe ==

While the Big Bang theory may be more in line with Genesis than a steady-state theory, most Biblican literalists would argue the Big Bang theory is false. Since it's false, Genesis saying something ''kind of'' like it isn't really scientific foreknowledge, and I feel this part should be removed. Thoughts, anybody? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:59, 8 February 2010 (EST)

== Eyesight ==

I just read the part about eye sight and was trying to find out more information about this and am rather curious. Is there any source for this or anyone know about what what medical techniques it is referring to in the article or even the doctor that confirmed this? Thank you in advance [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 19:42, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:Your question is a good one. This NPR story describes superficially one woman's experience in having her sight restored. [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112933586] It doesn't go into as much detail as the biblical account so more citations would be welcome. I'll continue to look as well.

:: Please let us know I would love to read it and we could also put it as the reference to the article. Thanks Andy! [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 22:39, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::: This account from Friday's newspaper in the [[U.K.]] is analogous but doesn't specifically mention the experience of seeing people walking as the eyesight is restored. It does, however, capture the overall sensation. (cite moved to content page)

:::: I looked in the history of the article and show that you added this on 24 November 2009. Do you remember where this information came from? Was it from a medical journal or newspaper or something different? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 23:08, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: I heard it from a medical source -- an eye surgeon I believe -- which may not have been published. The foregoing newspaper accounts come close but if the editors become aware of the similarity with the biblical account, then I doubt they would publish it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 10 June 2010 (EDT)

:::::: Sounds like an interesting story wish I was able to read it. Maybe I will come across it in the future. Also in cases where there is no written source how should these types of things be referenced on conservapedia? [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:41, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia recognizes liberal bias in newspapers. Accordingly, not all newspapers citations are valid (due to bias), and some citations are difficult to find because liberals are censoring the information in publications they control. In the latter case, we keep looking when there is reason to think a statement is true, rather than censoring the truth to the detriment of visitors. Conservapedia is a leader, not a follower.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:56, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

(unident) I hope this isn't taken the wrong way, but it sounds as though you are saying Add content to articles that is believed to be valid and then find sources that match rather than finding useful information and then putting it into the article. If you can't then just leave it unsourced. In that case I should add information about volcanoes since some believe that information in the bible (Sodom and Gomorrah) predates scientific knowledge. I however don't have sources for this. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 13:55, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

Until we have a citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking", this "eyesight" portion has no factual basis and should be removed. [[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]] 21:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== Engineering ==

Hmm... How does Joel 2:3-4 predict automobiles? Also, there is no Isaiah 31:56... although I definitely see how Ecc 10:20 could be a reference to radio! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 23:46, 11 June 2010 (EDT)

: It was a suggestion taken from a credible site. I admit my skepticism about these alleged predictions of engineering developments also, but have an open mind about them. Obviously if there is no Isaiah 31:56, then that is a real problem! Please feel free to revise as you think appropriate.

: Of course, when [[Leonardo da Vinci]] sketched something flying, every atheist claims he had foreknowledge of the airplane!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:52, 11 June 2010 (EDT)
::Haha - ironic considering that though he disagreed with the Church of his day on many topics, he was nevertheless a practicing Catholic!
::A little bit of digging reveals Isaiah 40:31, which reads ''"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint."'' I wonder if that's the passage they meant? I'll change it to that, since 31:56 doesn't exist, although I confess your skepticism that these are actual references to airplanes. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 00:09, 12 June 2010 (EDT)

::: I do believe that this was meant to be Isaiah 31:5 and the 6 was a mistake("Like birds hovering overhead, the LORD Almighty will shield Jerusalem; he will shield it and deliver it, he will 'pass over' it and will rescue it.") however I think the point the referenced article was trying to make was that one should not try to reinterpret biblical passages to make it fit what you want instead look at the context of what it it is trying to say and not just the verse. In this case Isaiah 31:5 is more about God keeping Jerusalem safe from Egypt and not about Airplanes flying over head. Unless of course God is keeping it safe with F-14. [[User:Johnfranklin|Johnfranklin]] 11:43, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: I have an open mind about this, but admit that it struck me as too much of a reach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:45, 13 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Well, in the Six-Day War the Israeli Air Force did keep Jerusalem and Israel defended and safe from Eyptian planes by destroying most of them while they were still on the ground. Maybe the verses were telling contemporary Israelites and the future Israelis they were safe, but only the latter would understand that the birds represented air planes. It's possible. As Mr. Schlafly says, we should keep an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 01:21, 14 June 2010 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

The opinion was reverted because it did not apply to the specific examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:56, 27 June 2010 (EDT)

== Incorrect value of Pi ==

''Pi when expressed as one digit is equal to 3'' - I think this sentence should be suppressed, because the text gives Pi with '''two''' decimal places, as the ratio of 30 cubits to 10 cubits. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:43, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: No, "30 cubits to 10 cubits" is only one significant digit apiece.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:29, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Aren't we overlooking 1 Kings 7:26? "And it was a hand breadth thick,.." The thickness must be taken into consideration. Using the equation 30C ÷ 3.1415962 + 2H = 10C. C=cubits, H=hand breadth. We are able to solve the equation using my cubit (18.5 inches), and we get:

::555 inches (30 x 18.5) circumference

::176.662 inches (555 ÷ 3.14159) diameter

::The difference between 185 inches(10x18.5) and 176.662 inches is 8.338 inches. This is two of my hand breadths!(8.338÷2=4.169) Remember, you must take into account two hand breadths, one for the opposite sides of the circular object.

::You can measure your own cubit from elbow to longest finger tip, and the difference will be two of your hand breadths!!

::This example of Pi should be in the foreknowledge section. Pi is in the Bible 1000 B.C. before the Greeks rediscovered Pi!--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 22:47, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

::: Interesting. Any comments by others on the validity of the above suggestion?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:51, 8 August 2010 (EDT)

:::: It can also be solved by using the description in scripture, 1 Kings 7:26 "...and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, as a lily blossom;"NASB In other words, the brim flared outward like a flowering lily. So, the diameter was measured from 'brim to brim' which flared out further than the body of the bath. [[http://creation.com/images/creation_mag/vol17/p24_moltensea.jpg]] Click to see illustration.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::http://creation.com/does-the-bible-say-pi-equals-3

::::The calculation is the same as using the handbreadth equation above, the difference being the amount of flare beyond the body of the bath round about.--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 21:27, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

:::::There's a specific thing we all overlooked: people's bodily measurements for cubits and handbreadths are of different sizes. My personal handbreadth is 8.25 inches; my personal cubit is 18 inches exactly. Someone who is about 6.3 feet tall will have slightly-larger measurements. Moses was educated in Egypt, and he was familiar with the Royal Egyptian cubit of about 22 inches. So, I'm a bit curious here. Take my measurements and make some new calculations based on what was said above; take Andy's and do the same; take your's, Bryant, and do the same, and let's see what we get. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:53, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

::::::The size difference is not an issue, because they used a standard. The Hebrew standard cubit was about 18 inches and the handbreadth was about 4 inches. I used my cubit (18.5) in the equation above. Karajou, your handbreadth would be 4.125 with 8.25 being two handbreadths. Using the standard Hebrew cubit and handbreadth, plug in the numbers, 18 x 10 cubits = 180 - 8 = 172 inches

::::::Circumference = diameter x pi
::::::..............= 172 in x 3.14
::::::..............= 540 inches
::::::..............= 30 cubits (540 ÷ 18)--[[User:Bryantjwb|Bryantjwb]] 00:43, 20 August 2010 (EDT)

== Biblical Hindsight is 20/20 ==

Biblical Hindsight is 20/20
The "eyesight" portion should be removed, not only as there is yet no ''citation for the medical knowledge that verifies the phenomenon of "trees walking"'' as [[User:PhyllisS]] states above, but because there is the dubious statement that ''This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight'', thereby inferring that the 20th century saw the first restored eyesights. In fact, couching the cataract - an operation which can restore eyesight - is very ancient, sanctioned as early as in the [[Code of Hammurabi]], was practiced by Celsus (25BC-50AD) during the lifetime of Jesus Christ and later [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book=25:chapter=92&highlight=couching mentioned] by [[Pliny the Elder]] (23-79 AD), a contemporary of Mark (see [http://www.rila.co.uk/issues/free/001/2001/v4n2/p61_65/p61_65.html A short history of cataract surgery]). So, there were eyewitnesses for the phenomena go along with regaining your sight in the time of Mark.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:Interesting, and I'd like to learn more, especially whether "couching the cataract" restored sight to the blind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:00, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

:P.S. The cite explaining the history above does not describe the sensation of restoring sight from complete blindness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)

== Unclean hands and food ==

I may have misunderstood what you are trying to say perhaps, but to the best of my knowledge, washing one's hands before cooking and/or eating is one of the basic rules of hygiene, extremely important in the prevention of disease. My father is a doctor, and if he didn't perform this very simple step very seriously, after visiting patients with all sorts of ailments, his health would undoubtedly be threatened. And the importance of this simple procedure, to the best of my scientific knowledge, is very important not only for doctors, but for everyone.
Likewise, eating "unclean" food can and WILL make you ill - poorly conserved and poorly cooked food can have high amounts of patogens that can cause all sorts of trouble, from bacteria to viruses to tapeworms.

Matthew 15:11, "It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man" does not, in my opinion, refer to the health of the human body, but rather to the health of the soul. No matter what you eat or how you eat it, your soul will not suffer because of it, is what, in my opinion, Jesus is saying. But the body can, and will, suffer, depending on what enters your mouth, and that is undeniable.

To say - as I think the article is stating - that unclean hands or unclean food do not cause disease is to turn your back on the very thing that extended the life expectancy of mankind so much in the past 1000 years, namely, proper hygiene. It also has the potential to cause harm to anyone who actually believes it, and thinks that eating "unclean" food or not following proper hygiene rules cannot really harm his health.

If you know of any relevant scientific source that says that eating "unclean food" or eating with "unclean hands" is not unadvisable, please post it for all to see.

Thank you, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 08:59, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

: Thank you for your comment, but it illustrates how the medical misunderstanding of digestion persists even 2000 years after Jesus stated the real truth. It is not in Matthew 15:11 where Jesus explained why it is not necessary always to wash one's hands before eating, but somewhere in Mark (I think).

: Good hygiene is helpful and has extended lifespan, but usually not by protecting the digestive system. The digestive system is powerful enough to destroy nearly everything that is harmful. The reason people are told today to wash their hands is typically not to protect what they eat, but to avoid spreading to their eyes and nose and others, particularly to those with weak immune systems.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:27, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:: Dear Andrew,
:: Thanks for answering so quickly! Unfortunately, I cannot say I agree with you. Proper handwashing, especially before preparing or consuming meals, does prevent diseases - not only related to contact of patogens with eyes and nose, but also with contacts of patogens with the oral cavity, where they eventually end up in the stomach. According to the World Health Organization, ''Handwashing with soap is among the most effective and inexpensive ways to prevent diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, which together are responsible for the majority of child deaths.''<ref>http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf</ref> Diarrheal diseases, needless to say, involve the DIGESTIVE system. Stomach flu is also another disease of the digestive system which can be prevented in many cases by proper handwashing. Not washing one's hands before preparing or consuming a meal also provides helminths (aka worms) with an easy way in to your intestine. Again, another potential problem to the digestive trait whose risk can be easily cut by handwashing. So the digestive system does not appeas to "destroy nearly everything that is harmful" as you seem to claim. Of course, our immunitary system does a good job, but it is not an invincible shield. And, of course people with weak immune systems (children, old people, people with immunitary diseases) will have even more risks, but not washing one's hands is a potential health hazard for healthy people, as well.
::For more information please refer to this WHO document about the importance of handwashing. http://www.who.int/gpsc/events/2008/Global_Handwashing_Day_Planners_Guide.pdf
::If you have any scientific source which supports your point of view, by all means provide a link or a reference, I'm always happy to examine other points of view too.
::Thank you,
::--[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:05, 11 July 2010 (EDT)
::<references />

:::Catching disease by having unclean hands at a meal is a grossly exaggerated risk, like other phobias. Worse, educated people who should know better are the ones who exaggerate this risk the most. I'm not saying the risk is zero; other exaggerated fears have some theoretical basis also. But Jesus was right in debunking this fear and the theory behind it. Science is still trying to catch up to where Jesus was 2000 years ago on this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::(link dump reverted) Marco, I reverted your dump of links. I looked at the first two and found them to be barely related to the point at issue here. This site is a place for reasoned argument. Please address my statement above or make another reasoned argument, supported by your best link or two. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:49, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::Washing one's hands reduces the risk that you'll put germs into your eyes.

:::::*As you touch people, surfaces and objects throughout the day, you accumulate germs on your hands. In turn, you can infect yourself with these germs by touching your eyes, nose or mouth. [http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hand-washing/HQ00407]

:::::You don't have to worry about germs getting into your food unless you've been touching human waste. But if you serve hundreds of people, the law requires you to wash your hands after using the bathroom. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:57, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::: In response to the indented comment above, it says nothing about touching food with unclean hands and eating it, which is the point of this discussion. Ed's point about the law requiring hand-washing by food preparers after handling human waste is well-taken, but the law does not required this of the people who eat the food.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:07, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Dear Andy, I don't understand why you "found my links to be barely related to the point at issue here". Let's see if we can agree on the following points:

:::::::1. The point at issue here is the importance of handwashing as a precautionary hygienic measure.
:::::::2. What is at issue is also whether such measure is especially important before consuming food.
:::::::3. The links I have provided, and which I can provide again should you so desire, were scientific studies examining the incidence of several diseases, most of them involving the digestive trait, in subjects that routinely wash their hands, and subjects that don't.
:::::::4. Such studies concluded that the incidence of said diseases was considerably lower in those who wash their hands.

:::::::In light of this, I don't see why you claimed that the links I provided were only "barely related". I also don't see why you reverted my edit and deleted it, instead of simply replying to my post saying that the links were only marginally related. Had you done so, people could have accessed them and decided for themselves whether it was true that they were unrelated or not. As it is, they only have your word that they were.

:::::::I can spend my time and energies to provide you with a reasoned, sourced refutation of your point, but before I do so, I need your assurance that it will not be censored. (I will of course not be abusive or offensive in any way: I will only expose my point of view, and back it up with sources.)

:::::::If you assure me that my post will not be reverted and deleted, I will write it. Otherwise, I will refrain from commenting further on this debate.

:::::::Sincerely yours, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 16:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::Marco, I pointed out that Jesus was right in debunking an irrational phobia about eating with unclean hands. You responded with a link dump that lacked any sense of proportionality (risk), or applicability to the typical situation that Jesus was addressing. It's as though I said that the typical fear of flying is irrational, whereby you respond with a link dump of news stories about random plane crashes!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:41, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

:::::::::Ok, we can agree on that, one will not automatically die every time he has lunch without washing his hands. The risk is not high, and scaremongering is unnecessary. Yet, in my opinion, handwashing before eating should be considered an important hygienic practice, and, in some contexts, even vital. The importance is especially evident in underdeveloped countries, where even the adoption of a simple practice like this can save many lives. What I think we can agree on is, "not washing hands before eating is not deadly nor incredibly dangerous, but it is nonetheless very advisable."
:::::::::This said, we can consider this debate concluded and move on to more constructive matters (personally, I like to spend my time on Conservapedia spellchecking articles :) )
:::::::::Regards, --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 17:09, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::::::Marco, I appreciate your gracious reply, but I do feel compelled to emphasize that it was Jesus who was right 2000 years ago, not me. Moreover, I'm not trying to persuade you, but rather to observe that to this day even the smartest among us exaggerate the risk of eating with unwashed hands contrary to what Jesus simply stated. This risk is not zero, as you point out, but (like the risk of plane crashes) it is small enough to rebuke the fear-mongering.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 11 July 2010 (EDT)

<- Andy, you are right when you are thinking about bacterial infections. But what about [http://newyorkhealth.gov/diseases/communicable/pinworm/fact_sheet.htm pinworms], [http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/parasites_and_foodborne_illness/index.asp#7 tapeworms], or [http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/giardiasis/factsht_giardia.htm Giardia]? Especially under the more interesting hygienic conditions of the Near East, it is consoling to know that the man who breaks your bread has scrubbed his hands clean from all the worm's eggs which are designed to be taken in orally. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

:Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. This illustrates why Conservapedia favors reasoned argument, with a superb cite, rather than lack of argument with many cites.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:01, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

::''Your links are not applicable to the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus. ''
::What the typical situation, as addressed by Jesus? We read in Mark 7:1-5 (NIV)
:::''1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were "unclean," that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)''
::Or taken from the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] Mark 7:3-4
:::''3The reason for this was that the Pharisees, along with all the other Jews, had a tradition never to eat unless they had washed their hands.4When they came from the public square, they did not eat unless they had washed first. They retained many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pots, kettles, and tables.''
::This seems to be an excellent advice if you want for instance to minimize the chance of an infection with [[Intestinal Roundworm]]s (the most common human worm infection with the highest prevalence in tropical and subtropical regions, and areas with inadequate sanitation [http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/html/ascariasis.htm]) in the ''typical situation'' in Galilee for centuries to come!
::Please keep in mind that what we think to be the ''typical situation'', i.e., Western standards of food preparation and disposition of fecal matters, is in fact an historical and geographical exception!
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

== Other religions ==

Hello! I know that this is a preeminently Christian site, and I am a Christian myself, but I wanted to point out that other religions also claim that their sacred texts possess remarkable scientific foreknowledge. The Muslim have found passages in the Quran that, they claim, prove that the text was inspired by God, as they denote (in their opinion) a scientific knowledge ahead of the time. Also, the Hindu claim that ALL knowledge is contained in the Vedic texts. I believe it would be interesting to make a comparative study of that too, not of course in this article (which is devoted to the Bible) but in other articles. Does anyone else think that it would be interesting? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 13:24, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

: I don't mind if you want to start different entries, as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:34, 12 July 2010 (EDT)

== Mathematics suggestion ==

Here is the text of a suggestion I made that was reverted, which I submit for further discussion: --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:22, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

=== Axiomatization of Arithmetic ===
The full set of axioms for integer arithmetic may be found in the Bible, as demonstrated by J.C. Keister in [http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/027a-MathandtheBible.pdf this article]. For example, [[Luke 9-16 (Translated)|Luke 12:52]] is a striking statement of the commutative law for addition: "For from this point forward there will be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three." This understanding presaged both later attempts at the axiomatization of arithmetic by Peano and the development of [[abstract algebra]] in the 19th and 20th centuries.

:Your suggestion is interesting and the article by Keister appears to be legitimate. Perhaps the weakness is a lack of weightier examples. I welcome comments by others about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

::I appreciate the need for examples, but Keister gives extensive references for this claim in his article. I anxiously await the input of other editors.
::Could you clarify how Jesus walking on water is related to wave-particle duality, and how the scripture demonstrates foreknowledge of this? I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it. The Bible describes the Sun, but that fact alone does not mean that it shows foreknowledge of the specific mechanisms of nuclear fusion. --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 11:31, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: Go ahead and reinsert your material about axioms for integer arithmetic.

::: Will respond to your other question a bit later. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

::: As to your comment that "I think that showing foreknowledge of a phenomenon should be distinguished from merely documenting an instance of it," that's not the approach taken by the Nobel Prize committee. It recognizes the discovery of phenomena (such as cosmic background radiation) regardless of whether the scientists understand its theoretical basis. Obviously many people refuse to read the Bible and thus miss out on the benefit of its foreknowledge. Had scientists carefully studied the walking on water with an open mind, then it may not have taken 1900 years before they recognized the existence of wave-particle duality. Ditto for many other phenomena.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:30, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

== Wave particle Duality ==

I have to disagree that the Bible passage that is included describes wave-particle duality, and therefore that this is scientific foreknowledge. The sentence "Particles are subject to gravity; waves are not." is not completely true, as sources of high gravity can affect waves. This, though is not my real concern.

My main concern is that, for Jesus to act like a wave, he would have to have been moving very fast. Using the De Broglie Theory of Matter, <math></math>λ=h/p
where λ is the wavelenght, h is Planck constant (ie, 6.63*10-34) and p is momentum (p=mv). Using that equation and some assumptions, Mass of about 70kg, 2ms-1 walking speed (average walking speed is about 1 - 1.5 ms-1), this would give a wavelenght that is undetectable to human beings (~4.735*10-36), especially without modern equipment.

However, it would be possible for it to happen if the water had properties like that of custard. But as I said at the start, I do not think this is a piece of scienctific foreknowledge. If I am completely honest, it seems more like an attempt to make sciencetific theories appear to have been shown in the bible.

On a completely differnet point, the stars being unnumerable, I feel that any person at that time, that looked up to the sky at night could be able to make the assumption that the stars are unnumerable. Just because science hasn't confirmed something, doesn't mean it is not true. Science probably was unable to confirm something because the technology was not present at teh time. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 14:24, 27 September 2010 (EDT)

: Griffirg, your spelling is atrocious. As to your basic point, waves can take on many different forms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 27 September 2010 (EDT)
:: As for the stars, reasonable people at that time thought that there were just some 2,000 stars. The 6,000 stars was an extrapolation, including unseen stars in the Southern Hemisphere. I came across this 2,000-stars number some time ago, probably in [[Hyginus]]'s Astronomica. In Hyginus, the Milky Way is ''not'' formed by stars - see the last chapter. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:08, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T17:36:10Z

Sunda62:

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive 1|Archive 1]].'''''

----


I'd like to take out the phrase "asserted by atheists" from one of the Astronomy counterexamples, because it is not just atheists who believe in an [[Old Earth]] but also [[Old Earth Creationists]]. Any objections? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:37, 20 April 2010 (EDT)

== Freshwater lakes are known to be relatively young. ==

I'd like to have this point removed: The [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Countering_the_counter_examples|previous discussion]] has shown that it doesn't have any merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:05, 2 May 2010 (EDT)

As no one added to the previous discussion, I removed the point. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:18, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== continued existence of fragile natural arches ==

That's as bad as the example of the lakes: it reminds me of stating: ''he cannot be old, all his pimples are recent''. And the given references don't mention any ''extrapolation''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:03, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Great Lakes ==

''The massive [[Great Lakes]] are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago''

That would be only a counterexample, if there were any geologist who thought them to be millions of years old. But it seems to be scientific consensus that these lakes were created during the last great ice age ca. 10,000 years ago. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:07, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Salt Water Lakes ==

''The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as [[Mono Lake]] and the [[Great Salt Lake]], suggest a recent global [[flood]]''

No, it doesn't. It just suggests that [[endorheic]] lakes exist - lakes without an outflow to rivers or the ocean. If such a sea has an inflow, any dissolved material (like salts) will accumulate, while the water just evaporates.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 14:12, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

== Reply to above 4 comments ==

The 4 comments above are not substantive. In each case, the evidence is that a basic attribute of Earth ''is'' young, and nothing above supports the denial of this fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:58, 9 May 2010 (EDT)

:No. But they are all counterarguments to the concreteness of your examples. The comments above are all traditionally accepted and easily verifiable scientific theories that offer a more plausible and widely accepted version of what happened than the case you present. Take for example, your point regarding inland saltwater lakes. You make the claim that they can ONLY exist with the aid of a global flood. This is CATEGORICALLY untrue, and demonstrates a dangerous predisposition to jump to conclusions without scientific fact. As mentioned above. The existence of said lakes is attributed to a chemical tendency known as distillation. Water is volatile and salt is not, therefore water evaporates out of the lake until the concentration of salt and other solids is extremely high. You can duplicate this experiment at home by taking a large jug of tap water and allowing it to sit in a hot, bright, dry room for a few weeks. When you return, the tap water will have an extremely high salinity, no ocean water needed.

:Conversely, the claim about a global flood has numerous holes in it. For one, there is no uniform layer of sediment that exists evenly in global geological strata. Such a layer would be inevitable if the world really was entirely submerged for any appreciable period of time. Secondly, and more importantly, there isn't enough water to fill the oceans AND cover the land. A global flood would require that there had once been a lot of water that is no longer present on earth, and this simply can't happen.

:I'm sorry to say, Andy, but YOUR arguments are not substantive.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:02, 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== What's a counterexample? ==

Maybe we have to start with the question above. I think it is reasonable to expect a ''counterexample'' to have some basic properties:

# it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.
# it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a ''Young Earth'' and finally:
# the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an ''Old Earth''.

What are the theories saying? Here are two working definitions...

'''Old Earth''': Since the 18th century, scientist are convinced that the surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time. So, if there is a somewhat widespread geological feature, we expect that we can observe it in all stages of development.

'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped as we find it now by the Great Flood.

So, how do the examples fit in?

: Frank, the style of your remarks reflect a lack of an open mind towards this issue. You state, "Since the 18th century, scientist[s] are convinced ... over long periods of time." This is an historical distortion, and unhelpful to an open-minded discussion even if were true.

: I welcome open-minded discussions, but closed-minded discussions are often a waste of time. So please show some signs of an open mind about this first. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

::I'm all for an open-minded discussion, too, and I'm sorry if my previous comment didn't convey this. So, let's drop the historical aspect, and just say:
::*'''Old Earth''': The surface of the Earth is changing gradually over long periods of time, and the rate of this change is roughly constant.
::*'''Young Earth''': The surface of the Earth was mainly shaped by the Great Flood a couple of thousands years ago.

::But I hope you can agree with the basic properties (points 1-3 above) a ''counterexample to an Old Earth'' should have?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:46, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

:::Frank, are you trying to refute any of the counterexamples? (In which case please provide some actual evidence) Your closed-minded insistence on causing argument seems pointless. [[User:ArnoldR|ArnoldR]] 08:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The continued existence of fragile natural arches without having collapsed a short time period for erosion and stresses on them ===
''Fragile natural arches'' exist, as there are always formed new ones. Old natural arches collapse, but [http://www.archmillennium.net/Baby_Arch.htm others] may [http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/kcb60/level2/lith61.html replace] them. What if there were no natural arches? I don't think that anybody had thought of them then.

=== The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ===
No geologists thinks that these lakes are millions of years old: they were created during the last ice age. Lakes are constantly created (e.g., when rivers change there bed), and happen to perish over time ([[Messel pit]]). Some are older than others ([[Baikal sea]]). The absence of new lakes would be quite puzzling for geologists! And Earth isn't as young as the youngest lake, but much older than the oldest one... (by FrankC)

: The "ice age theory" was a patch to try to explain away the counterexample. The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:20, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::It quite a leap to get from ''Great Lakes were created during the last ice age'' to ''all lakes were created during the last ice age''! There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the [[Great Flood]], though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.
::BTW, what do you think of the three basic properties of a counterexample which I mentioned above?
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:45, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::: Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample.

::: As to your suggestion of three basis properties of a counterexample, I comment on each here:

::::1. it should not be easily - or even obviously - be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This would work if you include a requirement of plausibility.

::::2. it should be at least as well be explained within the concurring theory of a Young Earth and finally:

:::::No, this is not required, but illustrates a basic flaw in Old-Earth-thinking. Do you think mathematicians accept the validity of a hypothesis as long as no competing hypothesis has been proven? Of course not.

::::3. the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth.

:::::This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:39, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::''implausible ice age theory''? What's implausible about that? It just doesn't fit your YEC preconceptions.
::::::# Yes, I include the requirement of plausibility. What's the point of implausible counterexamples?
::::::# Is there a third theory I haven't heard of? If the Earth isn't young, it is old.
::::::# ''This is incoherent, but illustrates the contorted logic of Old-Earth advocates''. No, I'm afraid, that' just obvious common sense.
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:55, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::: Frank, if you're not going to address my substantive points, then please don't respond. I make a direct analogy to mathematical hypotheses and you ignored it. Do you really think a mathematical hypothesis must be true if there is no proof for the converse?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:16, 18 May 2010 (EDT)

::::::::I'm sorry, I seem to have missed the substantive points, so I try to make myself clearer by using the language of logic. So, let's '''C''' be a counterexample to the Old Earth Theory ('''OET'''). If '''C''' is true, than '''OET''' should be false, that's the first point:
::::::::'''1: ''' '''C ⇒ ~OET'''. If '''C''' is a good counterexample, than this equation should be obvious for everyone.
::::::::I thought the Young Earth Theory ('''YET''') and the Old Earth Theory to be complementary, so ''' YET = ~OET'''. Therefore obviously
::::::::'''2: ''' '''C ⇒ YET'''
::::::::And from ''1'', one gets
::::::::'''3: ''' ''' OET ⇒ ~C'''
::::::::I hope that this straightforward formulation is less confusing than my verbose ''the negation of the counterexample should be even more obviously and more easily be reconciled or explained within the theory of an Old Earth. '' I formulated it this way, as all this isn't as ''exact'' as one would wish for: what's an obvious relation for one, needs quite an elaborate explanation for another.

::::::::But now for ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago ''. As I said before, OET don't claim that these lakes existed millions of years ago, but are quite recent. You then said : '' The patch fails, however, because freshwater lakes exist near the Equator, too far from any plausible ice.'' So, what's your ''counterexample'' now? Do you claim that the OET implies that all lakes are of the same age or were created in the same way? It seems to me that you are saying: ''As there are lakes near the Equator, the Great Lakes are millions of years old - according to OET''. But that's just a [[strawman]], and shouldn't be included in the list.
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:31, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

=== The existence of inland saltwater lakes, such as Mono Lake and the Great Salt Lake, suggest a recent global flood ===
As said earlier, saltwater lakes are explained easily as being [[endorheic]]. If there were no saltwater seas, then the endorheic basins would have to be very unstable, preventing bodies of water to become older than a couple of hundred years. This would imply quite a geologic activity, which we don't observe. But how do these inland saltwater lakes fit within the theory of a ''Young Earth''? Do you imply that the Earth was inundated by a salty ocean for forty days and nights? How could anything survive - and multiply - on this salty ground when the water receded? To explain these lakes with a global flood poses quite a few problems.
So, this ''counterexample'' is especially unconvincing, as it fails all three basic properties...

=== An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age ===
Has anyone done this extrapolation? Without it, the point is moot.

At the moment, the article impresses with the quantity of examples. But the obvious weakness of some examples distracts from other examples which may have some merit.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:00, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lakes again ==

*It was repeatedly explained why the ''Great Lakes'' are no countexample to an Old Earth.
*Aschlafly concluded: ''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample."''
*Aschlafly, could you reformulate the ''counterexample'' in question? Thanks.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:49, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: There are large freshwater lakes near the Equator. Do you think an "Ice Age" formed them also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:10, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::To quote myself: ''There a various mechanisms to form a lake, though in the north (Canada, US, Finland) the ice age is responsible for most of them. I doubt that Young Earth Creationists claim that all lakes were created during the Great Flood, though I assume that they think that no lake is older than this.'' [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:15, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You may quote yourself, but your answer was less than direct. You seem to admit that that the Ice Age did NOT form the large freshwater lakes near the Equator. But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also. That defies explanation consistent with an Old Earth theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Pfft, in the 70's [[Liberal|liberals]] were saying that the earth was cooling. Now, its supposedly warming. I wouldn't be surprised if they change their tune about the "Ice Age" in 40 years.

''But I'm confident that any testing done on those lakes will reveal a young age for them also.''

I'm afraid that your confidence is misplaced - the examinations and tests of geologists lead to different results. Let's have a closer look - what lakes are we talking about? Near to the equator - say in the strip between 5° North and 5° South - the number of lakes of considerable size isn't big:
*[[South America]]: none
*[[Indonesia]]: '''Lake Toba''' on [[Sumatra]], '''Lake Tempe''' and '''Lake Poso''' on [[Sulawesi]]. Lake Toba is the largest volcanic lake in the world, resulting from an eruption 69,000 - 78,000 years ago. So, it's older (according to the test of geologists) than the last [[Ice Age]], but fairly young on a geological scale. Lake Tempe is a flood plain of an average depth of 5m, so it's quite volatile in geological standards. Lake Poso is a tectonic lake and regarded as ancient (1 - 2 million years).
*[[Africa]]: Here you find the [[African Great Lakes]], in the area of our interest especially, the [[Lake Victoria]], [[Lake Tanganyika]], [[Lake Turkana]], [[Lake Albert]], [[Lake Kivu]], and [[Lake Edward]]. These are located in the [[Great Rift Valley]], which is - according to geologists - a continental rift zone. Though you may call ''Lake Victoria'' young - as it's only 500,000 old and dried out a couple of times, the other lakes are estimated to be roughly 4 million years old.

All of these lakes are older than the American [[Great Lakes]]. So, I repeat my request: please, remove ''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '' from the list of counterexamples:
* it is misleading, as ''atheistic geologists'' don't claim that these lakes ''have existed millions of years ago''
* your alternate approach (''Well, then, the freshwater lakes that were not formed by the (implausible) "ice age" theory serve as a counterexample'') doesn't work neither, as there are ancient (≈ 4 million years) freshwater lakes.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:47, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

: None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary. Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.

: I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory? {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

::''None of the freshwater lakes are older than 10,000 years, and you cite nothing to the contrary.''
::On the contrary, there is little doubt under geologists that all of the lakes above are not young (with the possible exception of Lake Tempe) . Every textbook on geology will tell you that the oldes of Great African Lakes were formed ≈ 4 mya ago, with Lake Victoria being the youngest of the lot<ref>John Reader, ''Africa'', National Geographic 9/2001</ref>. The [http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0601-09= Toba event] took place ≈ 70,000 years ago.
::''Carbon dating, for example, repeatedly confirms that even the oldest freshwater sources are young.''
::This doesn't make sense. Carbon dating is only used on relatively young (holecenic) freshwater sources. (More in a separate section)
::''I've answered your question, now how about answering mine below, repeated here for your convenience: do you agree that arguing against your view of creationism is no basis for defending the [[Old Earth]] theory?''
::I thought that I've answered this question, too, but I'll elaborate:
::*no, arguing against one theory doesn't defend the other. But both theories can't be true simultaneously - though both could be false. OTOH, there aren't that many concurring theories out there. And entries like [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=784643&oldid=784484 this] of your fellow sysop ''Conservative'' show that on this page, Old Earth Theory and Young Earth Theory are put against each other.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:58, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

::: You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? Of course not. The Old Earth theory is disproved by the numerous counterexamples, and creationism is irrelevant to that disproof or a reasoned discussion of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

== Implausibility of the Ice Age Theory ==

What's implausible about it? The article [[Ice Age]] doesn't say anything about plausibility. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:51, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

: What is implausible is that sheets of ice from the north would carve the Great Lakes in their unique shape, plus the Mississippi bluffs that sometimes face north-to-south, plus other unexpected formations. Has a computer simulation ever duplicated this result? I've never found a paper about such a simulation in my search for one. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:29, 1 June 2010 (EDT)

::I'm not aware of any computer simulation of the formation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi which encompasses the whole of North America and is granular enough to show features like the bluffs you spoke of - neither for the last [[Ice Age]] nor for the [[Great Flood]].

::The creation of the Great Lakes however can be studied by geologists who examined the history of this area. Their surveys paint an interesting picture of the formation of the Great Lakes ([http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/damery1/gl_form.html here] an introduction).

::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, you repeatedly reason in an "either-or" manner, as though the only two possibilities are the [[Old Earth]] and your view of [[creationism]]. That's not logical or scientific. Both could be wrong. No mathematician would claim that if one proof is defective then an alternative proof must be correct.

::: If the Ice Age theory provided a plausible explanation for the Great Lakes and other observed formations (such as the Mississippi bluffs), then a computer simulation would be easy to build. But it hasn't been done, which suggests that the Ice Age theory is implausible in explaining all that is observed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:14, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::*both could be false, both aren't simulated globally
:::*are you ''confident'' that such a simulation could be easily build? The formation of the Great Lakes has been simulatied - that's something I'm confident of.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:24, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

:::(Could you please answer to my substantive edits in the previous section? Thanks. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:25, 2 June 2010 (EDT))

:::: Computer simulations would be easy to make. scientists clearly have access to computers. If they're so confident of their "theories" why not make an accurate simulation and add that as proof? I think they know there irratioinal beliefs won't help up to scruteny. FrankC, just have an open mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:36, 2 June 2010 (EDT)

::::: Actually, this PDF contains the results of just such a survey: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V72-48F04CM-26&_user=10&_coverDate=08/20/1990&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1478705466&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4e83cc89688e873bc3fa1889ab02a7b4&searchtype=a

:::::Andy, and ReligiousRight, I would suggest you both take your own advice on open-mindedness and try to read it.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

:::::And, just as a side note: As a programmer, I can assure you that simulating systems that involve literally millions of variables is about as easy as as it sounds.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:17 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== All carbon dating of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages ==

# All [[carbon dating]] of water supplies, even the most ancient and the deepest underground reservoirs, result in relatively young ages,<ref>http://www.betalabservices.com/PDF/Geyh.pdf</ref> and no water has been found suggesting an Old Earth.

The source doesn't corroborate the claim. The authors of the study seem to be well aware of the limits of [[carbon dating]], and don't try to apply it to pre-Holecene water. And of course, a reservoir can be older than the water it holds (you can't judge the age of the glass by the vintage of the wine!).

Conservapedia's article on [[carbon dating]] highlights the fact that it can't be used to determine ages older than 50,000 years.

nota bene: the source shouldn't be used for ''lakes'' at all: it mentions lakes only in a passing reference to the founder of the science of dating water, Franke and Deevey.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:08, 5 June 2010 (EDT)

<references/>

:"14C dating of the DIC in palaeowater is indispensable for paleohydrological and palaeoclimatologi-
cal reconstructions and for applied hydrogeological studies. Numerical mass-transport modeling
profits from the improvement of hydrogeological conceptions and the revision of boundary condi-
tions. In the case of non-steady-state recharge conditions, maximum and minimum recharge rates in
the past may be estimated from 14C dates of DIC via numerical modeling.

:14C dates measured from DIC enable the determination of regional geohydraulic parameters and
allow water balances to be checked. In most applications, complementary environmental isotope
analyses of hydrogen and oxygen together with general hydrochemical measurements are recom-
mended to facilitate a comprehensive and thorough interpretation of the 14C dates (Cark and Fritz
1997).

:A primary task towards a significant improvement in the applied 14C dating of groundwater remains
with the development of procedures that will enable 14C activities measured from DIC to be confi-
dently included in the calibration of finite-element and compartmental modeling exercises."

:This is a quote from the conclusion of the paper Andy cited to make his point about C-14 testing. In short, the conclusion says that it is necessary to further develop C-14 testing for dissolved carbons so as to improve our understanding of paleohydrology. The paper never makes concrete assertions about the "age" of the water, just suggestions for a method of testing the organic mater in water to help determine the age of isolated aquifers (NOT LAKES, which would have inconsistent levels due to evaporation and run-off.

:Andy, please start showing more discretion with the scope of your claims, and present better evidence. Bad arguments are a detraction from the integrity of this site, and your posts only end up hurting our argument.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:43 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Answer to Aschlafy ==

You asked: ''You still don't explain why you have repeatedly argued that an Old Earth theory must be true because you think that your view of creationism is false. I don't know why you include creationism at all in your reasoning, given that you think it is false. Would you expect a mathematician to chant as part of his proof of a difficult problem a statement that another proposed proof is false? ''

I don't think that the reason for the Old Earth theory to be true is that Young Earth creationism is false. But even if I followed the insinuated reasoning above, that shouldn't influence the topic of our discussion: ''counterexamples to an Old Earth''. On this talkpage, I want to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these counterexamples.

Just for an analogy. Often, you hear criticism of the infallibility of the Bible phrased as questions like ''Whom did Cain marry?'' ''What's the value of π according to 1 Kings 7:23?''. These questions can be phrased as ''counterexamples to Biblical inerrancy'':

*Cain dwelt in the land of Nod. There were no other people. So he couldn't get a wife.

*The circumference and the diameter of a bronze vessel are given as 30 units and 10 units. Therefore, the Bible claims that π equals 3.

Are these valid ''counterexamples''? Would someone using these examples in a discussion impress his dialog partners? No , of course not! The first one makes a claim (''there were no other people'' - Adam and Eve had other children!) not made in the Bible - therefore erecting a straw-man, the second one talks about the features of a special object: maybe there was a brim? And ''3''' ''is'' an approximation for π.... a These so-called ''counterexamples'' are easily explained within the Biblical framework, and anyone using them shows just his ignorance in these matters. Therefore, repeating them and ignoring the given explanation is just a Mantric exercise for those who chose not to face reality: I hope that we can agree that these ''counterexamples'' are weak, and their weakness can be seen be everyone - believing in Biblical inerrancy or not.

I'm afraid that the same must be said about some of the ''counterexamples to an Old Earth'': the most impressive about them is their number. But the individual examples tend to be quite weak. What happens to a pupil using them in a discussion with his fellow students - or his teacher? He will be faced with further questions and explanations. For instance, look at:

*The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago

Here, the straw-man are the ''millions of years'': no geologist is claiming that the Great Lakes are that old. What do you expect the pupil to answer to this? Should he chose to ignore the explanation and go on to the next point in the list? After a couple of easily refuted points, his public will get weary and start to think that there isn't a good counterexample against an Old Age of the Earth.

To prevent this, you should perhaps elaborate the examples, and give refutations for the explanations of geologists.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:39, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:What if we assume that geologists really do think that the Great Lakes were made by icebergs 10,000 years ago instead of 10,000,000? There is still no proof of this, not even a computer model (which I assure you could be easily done). Your argument is much ado about nothing. [[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 14:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::See my post responding to this topic earlier. The model is there in the link. Other proof includes any of the numerous geological surveys that can be found by googling the topic in google scholar. Also, "much ado about nothing" is taken from Shakespearian slang for sex crazed. I find the assertion that Frank is a sex addict just because you disagree with him to be insulting.--[[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:49 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Observations on some deceitful points in this article ==

Hi. I'm new here after finding this site from a google search on abortion. I also came across this, um, peculiar article. I looked at some of the facts presented and it looks deliberately misleading:

*For example, because freshwater lakes appear to be "young" (subjective term but we'll go with it) has no indication on the age of the earth.

*The earth's magnetic field is indeed declining, but when I go to that NASA site, in the ''same, exact'' paragraph, it says:

{{Cquote|There have been about 170 of these reversals during the last 76 million years according to geological evidence. The time between reversals seems to be growing longer, and is currently about 300,000 years or so. The last one of these happened about 770,000 years ago (0.77 on the graph). We are currently living during a period that has been called the Brunhes Magnetic Chron when the South Magnetic Pole is in the Northern Hemisphere. During the previous Matumaya Magnetic Chron, the North Magnetic Pole was in the Northern Hemisphere! Note that, from the polarity figure, at a time 0.94 million years ago (940,000 years ago) the magnetic field reverse itself by going nearly to 'zero' but then after a few thousand years it recovered and began to increase in strength. During the next 150,000 years it rose to a maximum strength and then began to decline. Notice, also, how fast the magnetic field recovers after it reaches 'zero', in some cases much less than 10,000 years.}}

.. but then the article has:

''Presently, Earth's magnetic field is weakening in strength by 5% every 100 years. ... Not comparable to an old earth''

Kind of deceptive and misleading, if not blatantly lying, no?

Thanks for your feedback, [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 15:45, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

===Another observation===
Religulous Right [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&diff=786079&oldid=786069 undid] an edit of mine, so I'll explain why I removed it. First off, it's highly speculative and opinionated to an individual:
*Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.
*Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth. Thanks [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:21, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
: I realize you're new here. However, you can't just walk into somebody's living room and strart deleting their work because you don't approve of it. Either you make your case here or contribute to the project with material before you start deleting stuff. If all new useres starting deleting everything they didn't like we would end up with no material. Also, if you didn't notice, there were four footnotes in the section you deleted. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:47, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::I made my case above, did you not read it? [[User:DouglasM|DouglasM]] 19:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Hopefully I can address a few of your concerns here, Douglas.
:::*''Are SAT scores going down everywhere? Is this a pattern? I should think that such a remarkable conclusion should have a reference.'' The only data I could find on this statement is [http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/26/sat here], which does show a slow and steady decline within the past five years of critical reading skills, while mathematics has stayed steady the past three years. The average high school student's SAT score, given the data, has dropped, though I concede that there is perhaps not enough data to make a definitive statement on the matter.
:::*''Personal letters and style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence. I'd see this as more of a "times change" event. Not to invoke a response here, but language evolves: compare old english to the english of the 1700s to today: all 3 are very different. Because language and social cues change throughout human history doesn't compare to overall intelligence and thus certainly not to the age of the earth.'' Style of writing does not necessarily reflect intelligence, but linguistics and grammar do. The spoken word has become—for lack of a better word (heh)—lazy due to either lost interest in proper spoken word or lack of mental ability to comprehend and utilize it. I believe that one's speech capabilities are intertwined with how intelligent he is.
:::In the future, please wait for someone to address your points before making changes to a sensitive article. -- [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 20:05, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

:::: Yes. However, I'm saying make your case BEFORE you start deleting points that could possibly be great insights. We don't want to be engaging in [[Liberal censorship]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 19:59, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
Thanks for the aid, RR, but this user has been politely removed from the site. He may return in three days. Until then, RR, may I suggest you do something more productive than bicker with liberals on talk pages? I understand they are infuriating, but trust me, us admins have got it under control. Nothing gets by us. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]][[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]] 20:03, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
I didn't realize he was a liberal. I thought he just may have been a deluded conservative. Even they make me very angry! But you're right. I'll do something more productive. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 20:09, 8 June 2010 (EDT)

::''Administrators'', RR, will offer instruction to other users, not other editors. Is that clear? I am disturbed by the continual similarities in your observations and those of past users we eventually found not to be of good intentions. Jacob's suggestion for you if far more polite than any I would offer at this moment, as I would have blocked you both for two days. While your contributions are appreciated the same as anyone else editing here, refrain from emulating other editors style, especially administrators, and completely refrain from bombast and unsupported statements, RR. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:38, 9 June 2010 (EDT)

== Sources ==

The sources for some of the ''counterexamples'' highlight their weaknesses:
* [http://www.newsweek.com/id/201582 Newsweek: "An embarrassing little secret of astronomy ...."] is a broken link. I couldn't find the actual article. When stating sources, it is helpful (and add to their credibility) if basic information is given, like the date of the publishing, the name of the author, etc.
* [http://www.unisci.com/stories/20021/0207023.htm "Hubble Shows Galaxy Rotating In The Wrong Direction"] this source doesn't say anything about the age of the galaxy
* http://www.amazon.com/review/R1WTZL8GG4H9K0 is a hint to the review from some Portuguese guy whoe writes about the book ''The Young Earth''. I commented this one out as the [[Conservapedia:Commandments]] state ''Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others.''
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:38, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

*I get an error for http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109865519/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 , too
The reinsertion of the link I took out is somewhat surprising. Could someone define what is to be understood by an ''authoritative work''? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:19, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:: Frank, your comments are nit-picky stuff. This is a site for the open-minded, earnest search for the truth. A galaxy spinning in a direction opposite to its tail confounds old earth theories, and that problem is not to be dismissed because a reporter didn't fully address it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:22, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::Where are you getting this information, Andy? You shoot down other's intuition and demand fact when people oppose you, but you refuse to offer fact, when you've been backed into a corner. That isn't fair. intuition doesn't make an argument. You need REAL sources for these assertions. It isn't nit-picky to say that the links you provide for most citations DO NOT remotely support your point. [[User:LoganBertram|LoganBertram]] 17:54 29 Sept 2010 (GMT+2)

== Newsweek ==

I couldn't find the article in ''newsweek'' - some censorship on their part? I reread the somewhat bizarre discussion in the [[Talk:Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth/Archive_1#Instability_of_the_Solar_System|archived talk page]] of this article, and [http://www.google.de/#hl=en&q=%22the+planetary+orbits+will+indeed+become+chaotic%2C%22+laughlin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=b52ff5a993c4ca35 googling] for the quote ''But the chances of orbits changing with less-than-catastrophic results are greater, notes Laughlin: "the planetary orbits will indeed become chaotic," with "the time required for chaos to significantly degrade the predictability of a system [on] the order of 5 million years."'', I came up with this article on [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/459781a.html Nature]. But the conclusion of this article is somewhat the opposite of the statement made here, as it's abstract states:

''Simulations show that orbital chaos can lead to collisions between Earth and the inner planets. But Einstein's tweaks to Newton's theory of gravity render these ruinous outcomes unlikely in the next few billion years.''

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

: Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:27, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::The quote above wasn't from some ''reporter'', but made by Gregory Laughlin (Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California), while your counterexample seems to be based on conclusion of the reporter of Newsweek. The factual information can be found here: [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08096.html Existence of collisional trajectories of Mercury, Mars and Venus with the Earth] and can be summarized as: yes such collisional trajectories exist, but they are even more improbable than thought earlier. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:34, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

:::The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:12, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

::::You give excellent advice: ''Our citations to articles are for the factual information provided, and sometimes for well-reasoned arguments, but rarely for reporters' conclusions, which of course can be mistaken or biased''. As I stated above, I couldn't find the piece in ''Newsweek'' anymore. You are aware that reporters of popular magazines tend to prefer a sensational headline over a more level-headed one, i.e. ''doom incoming!'' over ''scientists say incoming doom unlikely''.
::::Fortunately, the very articles the Newsweek's journalist wrote about are still available, and I linked to them in [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Here, you find the factual information, summarized by Gregory Laughlin:
::::'''Their [i.e. J. Laskar's & M. Gastineau's] work shows that the orbits of the terrestrial planets -- Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars -- have a roughly 99% chance of maintaining their current, well-ordered clockwork for the roughly 5 billion years that remain before the Sun evolves into a red giant and engulfs the inner Solar System''''''
::::Getting from this to ''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' or ''The basic counterexample that planetary orbits are unstable and chaotic is not refuted by anything factual'' is quite surprising.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:50, 22 June 2010 (EDT)

== Receding Moon ==

''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago ''

What's ''too close''? [http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html According to NASA], the current rate is 3.8 cm/year<ref>[http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/ApolloLaser.html Measuring the Moon's Distance] ''Apollo Laser Ranging Experiments Yield Results'' by Fred Espenak, GSFC Planetary Systems Laboratory (LPI Bulletin, No. 72, August, 1994.)</ref>. If we assume that this rate is constant, than it gained over the last billion years:

'''1,000,000,000 year × 3.8cm/year = 3,800,000,000cm = 38,000,000m = 38,000km'''

That roughly 10% of the current mean orbital radius of the [[Moon]] of 378,000km!

But the [[Roche limit]] of the system Earth-Moon is 18,000km - even 5 billion years ago the moon would not have been within this critical region.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:25, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

: 10% off the mean is a huge difference, which would have many dire effects. Note that it is bigger than 10% with respect to the closest distance. Have you looked into that? Also, Old Earth believers claim the age is far older than 1 billion years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:08, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

== Pattern ==

*''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate suggesting it would have been too close a billion years ago '': that is wrong, a billion years ago, there was no problem with the Moon's orbit, even at the current rate of receding.
*''The massive Great Lakes are receding in volume too rapidly to have existed millions of years ago '': that is deceptive, as geologists don't claim that the Great Lakes existed millions of years ago.
*''The planetary orbits in the solar system - including Earth's - are unstable and unsustainable over the very long time periods asserted by atheists'' That is misleading, as they probability that the solar system maintains stable is 99%.

What is to be achieved by massing up a great number of flawed statements?
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:31, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

:I've addressed your first point in the section above. Your second point does not rebut the truth of the statement. The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it. Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative. The solar system is unstable, and that is undeniable.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:12, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

::''The Great Lakes are very young, and people misled by Old Earth teachings are not typically taught that, or even aware of it.'' Science isn't about the public misconceptions of a theory, but the theory itself.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:33, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Links ==
<references />

== Strontium Isotopes ==

The concentration of strontium isotopes in seawater is fluctuating - and the concentration at various times is well known (and tabled). ''Long-term erosion'' is not the only cause of changing concentrations (e.g, have a look [http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1989AREPS..17..141V here]), so the assumption of a monotonous process is overly simplistic.

For short: not a good example, neither.

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:49, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

:I added a fact tag, as there doesn't seem to be a source to back up the claim made in this ''counterexample''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:08, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Speculations ==

Dear Andy,
above, you write ''Your third point about probabilities is purely speculative.'' No, it is not - as the quoted article states, the probabilities are calculated using the best current models and the best simulations. So, ''purely speculative'' doesn't fit this point at all!

OTOH, I have to read: ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that.'' '''Colliding with the Earth before that'''? Have you done any calculation? Made a simple simulation? I doubt it! In fact, a simple back-of-an-envelope calculation would have shown that the Moon was far from ''colliding'' - even making the assumption of a constant rate of recession!

I'm prone to erase this speculative (or better. factually incorrect) statement, but I don't want to be accused of ''censorship''. Therefore, I just added a <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki>-tag, giving you the possibility to back up this sentence with ''facts''.

I'll do the same for the for the entry ''An extrapolation of time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches supports a young earth age.'', as I couldn't find such an extrapolation anywhere, especially not in the given source.
[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 13:16, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

: Frank, your comments are longwinded, but did you respond to the defect in your comparison of the distance that Moon recedes to its mean distance from the Earth? Obviously the relevant comparison is to the closest distance of the Moon to the Earth. Please respond to that relevant issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:35, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

::*Assuming a constant rate of recession, I get the following values:
:::{|
|Recession of the Moon over one billion years (assuming a constant rate)||''' 38,000km'''
|-
|Current mean orbital radius:||'''378,000km'''
|-
|Current perigee:||'''363,000km'''
|}
::So, a billion years ago, the [[Moon]] would have been 10.05% (mean orbital radius) or 10.47% (closest distance) nearer to the Earth than it is now. Yes, there are consequence of such a closer distance (e.g., more and greater tidal movements), but I doubt that simple multicellular ocean-based life-forms would bother, so this isn't that relevant, is it?
::*Now, could you address the following problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::*JacobB deleted the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags I added to the two statements above without any further comment (or indeed coming up with sources/calculations/simulations). As he obviously doesn't like when comments of a sysop are reversed, I refrain from doing so. But I do think that these was the perfect place to insert such tags, as
:::#The statements aren't obvious, as they involve estimations and calculations
:::#I did research, and couldn't find any source to back up the claims
:::#In fact, according to my own estimations, these statements are wrong
:::#I stated the reasons for inserting the tags above
:::So, please, back up the statements, or reinsert the tags (hoping that someone else comes up with an explanation), or just delete the statements.
:::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:54, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Solar Fusion ==

''The primary reaction in the [[Sun]] is the fusing of [[hydrogen]] to make [[helium]], but the ratio of these remains too high for the Sun to have been burning for millions of years.''

Could someone add some numbers to this? For me, it sounds just wrong, and I couldn't find any source for it. It's something different from the [[Faint young Sun problem]], I suppose. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

:http://neutrino.aquaphoenix.com/un-esa/sun/sun-chapter5.html

:This article explains the life of the sun so far, with some great equations that explain the rate of H and He depletion in the solar fusion reaction. As you can see, the math supports a sun of at least 4.5 billion years old, with a life span that will extend for another 5 to 10 billion years.

:No doubt, Andy will chastise me for posting this, and demand that i be more open minded (ie. believe only what he believes and disregard "liberally biased math" in favor of the more biblically friendly "no real evidence at all")

== Geothermal Activity ==

''The interior of the earth is heated by decay of radioactive isotopes, which could not possibly still be persisting in sufficient quantities after 5 billion, or even half a billion, years.''

Why not? [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

== Questionable Probabilities ==

''If each of the 25 counterexamples provided here (as of June 28, 2010) has merely a 10% chance of being valid, which is certainly an underestimate, then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 7%. From another perspective, these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with 93% probability.''

This seems to be modeled after [[Counterexamples to Evolution]]:

''Moreover, if there is merely a 5% chance that each of these counterexamples is correct (and the odds are far higher than that), then the odds that these counterexamples are all incorrect and that evolution is true is infinitesimally small (only a 6% chance that evolution is true with 54 possible counterexamples).''

There are quite a few problems with these statements:
*Why 10% in the first case, but only 5% in the second? Is it that otherwise these counterexamples demonstrate that the Earth must be young with probability of 72% - and that value isn't convincing enough?
*Where do these probabilities come from? Is there a source which utters statements of which one in ten (or one in twenty) is correct?
*To assume that all these counterexamples are '''independent''' is ''very'' problematic!
*Generally, these counterexamples don't make predictions about unknowns, so, the validity of a statement like ''The moon is receding from the Earth at a rate that would have placed it too close to the Earth merely a billion years ago, causing tidal catastrophes and other problems, and colliding with the Earth before that'' can be calculated at this very moment: The probability that this counterexample is correct is ''zero'' as the statement is wrong.

I won't delete these ''"calculations"'', but I'll add <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> tags to give the authors (or others) the opportunity to state their lines of reasoning: So, why are these probabilities reasonable estimates, and why are the ''odds far higher than that'' resp. why are these ''underestimates''?

[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

: The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful. It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect. A number of 50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%. Regardless, the point is clear and educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:04, 29 June 2010 (EDT)

::*''The calculation concerning the overall effect of counterexamples on the likely validity of the theory is helpful.'' Helpful for what?
::*''It does not claim to be precise, and is almost certainly an ''underestimate'' of the probabilistic effect.'' Stating probabilities like '''6%''' or '''93%''' is a claim to be precise. Getting such precise numbers by putting together some very rough estimates (''50% could be used for the probability of each counterexample, rather than merely 10% or 5%'') isn't good statistical practice.
::*''Regardless, the point is clear and educational.'' What's the educational purpose of this point: ''add percentages to your statements because that sounds scientific'' ?
::*Above, I answered to your question on perigee vs. mean radius. Could you please address my problems:
:::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::Thanks, [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:53, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

::: Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind. If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it. But we're not going to censor the point itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:55, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::''Frank, this site isn't "wikianswers" for endless questions. '' No, it's a ''Trustworthy Encyclopedia''. That's why I'm not posing random questions, but I'm questioning dubious and unsourced statements. I'm not doing so frivolously, but only after checking into the statements myself. As you made these statements, you should either be able to give the necessary calculations/estimations/simulations to affirm them, or you should '''delete''' these questionable counterexamples. To paraphrase one of your comments: '''Please respond to these relevant issues''' - as you expect us to answer your questions...
::::''The effect of multiple counterexamples on the likelihood of truth of the original proposition is important to accept with an open mind.'' I'm sorry but I'm getting the idea that this is a scatter-shot approach where most of the projectiles are expect to miss...
::::''If you have a better way of stating it, let's see it.'' No, I've no better way of stating it, as I don't think it can be stated correctly. May I add that deleting a wrong point from an ecyclopedia isn't censorship, but just due editorial process?
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:29, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::: No, Frank, you're challenging a mathematical truth here. We welcome suggestions on explaining truths better. [[Censorship]] is not welcome here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:36, 1 July 2010 (EDT)

::::::*I don't doubt the mathematical truth that 1-0.925 ~ 0.93, but I doubt that this model is applicable. That's a difference.
::::::*Above, you asked me a question. I answered it - obviously satisfactorily, as there was no follow-up question of you. Now, I asked you two questions. Could you please try to answer them?
:::::::#What calculation or simulation accounts for the idea that the Moon would collide with the Earth if its orbit was lowered by 38,000km - or 190,000km (five billion years) - or even 300,000km?
:::::::#Where is the extrapolation of the ''time between the collapse of weaker arches with still-standing stronger arches''?
::::::*The counterexamples concerned by these questions aren't self-evident, and the first statement seems to be plainly wrong to me. If you fail to address these problems, if any query for additional information (i.e., the <nowiki>{{fact]]</nowiki>-tags) is removed, you give the impression that the only reason for these examples to be included in the list is that you just like them. Is this sufficient for an encyclopedia?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 08:59, 3 July 2010 (EDT)
* The Earth-Moon collision is not a statemente about a future fact, but a statement about a past event. ''Given the current models'' of tidal friction, and extrapolating backwards ''ceteris paribus'', the Earth-Moon ''would have'' collided (or, being as close as you wish) about 109 years ago. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:23, 29 September 2010 (EDT)
** Or, more precisely, about 2 x 109 years ago, according to "Lunar nodal tide and distance to the Moon during the Precambrian", J.C.G. Walker, K.J. Zahnle - Nature, 1986. There may be other theories (even negating this); I found that using Google Academic with "tidal friction earth moon collision". [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 13:36, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2010-09-29T17:23:43Z

Sunda62: /* Questionable Probabilities */

Compass and straightedge

2010-09-29T03:10:09Z

Sunda62: Solution to the three classical problems

'''Compass and straightedge constructions''' played an important role in the [[history]] of [[mathematics]]. Some constructions accomplished by the ancients led to revolutionary developments in abstract mathematics. Other construction problems posed in antiquity remain unsolved even today.

==Description==
A compass-and-straightedge construction is a [[diagram]] drawn freehand with only the aid of a [[compass]] and a [[ruler]] from which the markings have been erased, also known as a "straight edge". Part of the finished diagram should display the solution to a particular given problem. For example, if the problem is "Trisect a [[line]]," the solution might consist of the given line with three Xs constructed over it at even [[interval]]s.

The art of compass-and-straightedge construction was invented by the [[Ancient Greeks]] in the centuries before [[Christ]]. The Greeks were not only excellent [[mathematician]]s, but also accomplished [[navigation|navigators]] — so it perhaps seemed natural to them that their mathematical drawings should involve the use of compasses. The straightedge was a later embellishment; straight edges were plentiful in the ancient world (for example: sword edges, [[oar]]s, and the foundations of [[building]]s), and the concept of a straight edge was pleasing and [[aesthetic]] to the ancient Greek mind. Many popular constructions were collected in the ''[[Element]]s'' of [[Euclid]].

In modern times, compass-and-straightedge constructions were rediscovered by [[Euler]], who resurrected them from the pages of his namesake's ''Elements'' and found that their simple geometric [[truth]]s were a pleasant diversion from the [[calculus wars]] then raging between the {{hs|Isaac|Newton}}ian British and the [[Leibniz]]ian German mathematical communities. In the twentieth century, compass-and-straightedge methods have become a popular form of [[recreational mathematics]], and the technique is taught as a one-week [[unit]] in many [[middle school]] [[math]] [[class]]es.

==Classical unsolved problems==
The Ancident Greeks solved all their problems with compass and straightedge. There were, however, three problems which they could not solve: [[cube|doubling the cube]], [[squaring the circle]], and [[angle|trisecting the angle]]. [[Pythagoras]] himself was said to have remarked that trisecting the angle was the hardest thing he had ever attempted. [[Archimedes]] attempted a "[[rationalism|rationalistic]]" approach to trisecting the angle, in which he repeatedly ''bisected'' the angle until the number of divisions became a multiple of 3; however, this does not work for most angles, and in any event it is only physically possible to bisect most angles seven or eight times, so Archimedes' approach does not [[scale]].

These problems can't be solved with compass and straightedge; the analysis can be done with the help of [[Abstract Algebra]]. In short, starting with a fixed length ''L'', any two points that can be drawn by intersecting cicles and lines based on already existing points must lie at a distance that can be expressed as ''x L'', where ''x'' is a number whose expression uses only basic arithmetic operations and square roots - reciprocally, for every number ''x'' that can be thus expressed, it's possible to construct a line segment of length ''x L''.

''Squaring the circle'' is equivalent to drawing a line segment of length <math>\pi L\,</math>, which can't be done, because <math>\pi\,</math> is not an [[algebraic number]].

''Doubling the cube'' and ''trisecting an angle'' are equivalent to solving irreducible [[cubic equations]], whose solutions can't be expressed with only square roots - cubic roots (of the real number 2, in the doubling of the cube, or of complex numbers, in the case of the trisection) are required.

[[Category:Plane Geometry]]

Cerebral hemisphere

2010-08-23T21:15:20Z

Sunda62: the brain is not symmetric!

The '''cerebral hemisphere''' describes the two bi-laterally quasisymmetric regions of the [[brain]] that are separated by the [[median plane]]. The two hemispheres are usually referred to as the [[right hemisphere]] and [[left hemisphere]]. The two hemispheres are connected by the [[corpus callosum]].

The symmetry of the brain is only apparent: the hemisphere have different functions.

==References==
* Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.
* Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000). Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-8385-7701-6.

[[Category:Biology]]
[[Category:Neuroscience]]

Numa Pompilius

2010-08-23T21:13:42Z

Sunda62: reign began in the third year of the 16th Olympiad (Plutarch)

'''Numa Pompilius''' was the semi-legendary first monarch of ancient [[Rome]]. He reigned under the name ''Numa'', or "[[lion]]"; the ''Pompilius'' epithet (meaning "Numa the pompous") was a scholastic addition by the [[historiographer]] Marius.

Numa was the founder of the Saline [[priest]]hood, or ''Salii''. This order of [[pagan]] Roman priests took part each year in the Festival of the Salii, in which the priests had to dance and leap from table to table. For this reason they were selected to be strong and lithe men (Nativus: "''viri sa pleci dar Numa''").

Numa supposedly reigned from the third year of the sixteenth Olympiad<ref>[[Plutarch]], ''Parallel Lives'', ''The Life of Numa'', 1.3</ref> until his death in 673 [[BC]].

== References ==
<references />

[[Category:Ancient Rome]]
[[Category:Monarchs]]

Electrodynamics

2010-08-11T18:22:40Z

Sunda62: History

'''Electrodynamics''', also referred to as ''classical electrodynamics,'' is the study of the interactions between electrically charged objects and electric fields. On scales where quantum effects are negligible or can be ignored, electrodynamics provides a very good approximation of electrical and magnetic phenomena. On finer scales, [[quantum electrodynamics]] is a better approximation.

== History ==

The study of Electrodynamics began with [[Coulomb's Law]], which is similar to Newton's law of [[Gravitation]]. [[Maxwell equations]] introduced [[magnetism]] in the first unification theory, making electric forces and magnetism two aspects of the same fundamental force (the [[electromagnetic field]]). The fact that Maxwell equations didn't behave correctly when transformed using [[Galileo's relativity equations]] was a motivation for Einstein's [[Special theory of relativity]], since [[Lorentz transformation]] preserved the form of [[Maxwell equations]].

[[Category:physics]]

Gravitation

2010-08-11T18:07:36Z

Sunda62: /* Newtonian Gravitation */ Formula with r^3

'''Gravitation''' is the tendency for every object with [[mass]] to attract every other object with [[mass]]. Gravitation is what gives everyday objects [[Weight|weight]], and what causes objects that are dropped from a height to fall to the ground. Gravitation also keeps the [[Moon|moon]] in orbit around the [[Earth]] and the Earth in orbit around the [[Sun|sun]].

The attraction depends on the mass of the objects and the distance between them. The gravitational force between two persons is minuscule; however, the gravitational force between a person and the [[earth]] is quite significant. However, if the person gets in a spacecraft and flies halfway to the moon, the gravitational force between him and the earth will significantly decrease because they are farther apart. The force will never become zero no matter how far he goes from the earth; however, if he goes far enough away, it will be counterbalanced by other masses' gravitational force.

The mechanism which transports gravity has never been observed. [[Isaac Newton]] famously said about gravity, ''"Hypotheses non fingo,"'' or, "I make no hypotheses" about how it works. More recently, [[Albert Einstein]] hypothesized as part of [[general relativity]] that gravity is a fictitious force caused by masses distorting [[spacetime]] itself. [[Quantum mechanics]] denies this and hypothesizes instead that gravity is transmitted by a hypothetical particle, the [[graviton]], similar to how the electromagnetic force is transmitted by the [[photon]]. The debate continues as scientists try to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.

== Scientific Theories of Gravitation ==

Over the past four centuries, many scientific [[Theory|theories]] of gravitation have been proposed. Three of these theories have gained sufficient widespread acceptance to be considered, for a time, "correct" theories.

=== Galilean Gravitation ===

Gravitation has been the subject of modern scientific study for about 400 years, beginning with the work of [[Galileo Galilei]] in the late 16th century. According to a biography written by his pupil, Vincenzo Viviani, Galileo dropped objects from the Leaning Tower of Pisa to demonstrate that objects fall at the same rate regardless of mass.<ref>Drake, Stillman. Galileo At Work. (1978)</ref> (Historians now disagree as to whether this experiment actually took place in the way Viviani described.) These results were in contradiction to the ancient Aristotelian conception of gravity, which stated that the speed of an object's fall was proportional to its weight.

Galileo also described a mathematical formula for the distance an object will fall in a given time, though his description was geometric rather than algebraic.<ref>Sharratt, Michael. Galileo: Decisive Innovator. (1994)</ref> His formula, that the distance fallen is proportional to the square of the elapsed time, or d ∝ t2, remains valid for many approximations today. However, Galileo's theory that the acceleration of gravity is independent on an object's height above the ground could not stand the test of time.

=== Newtonian Gravitation ===

In 1687, [[Sir Isaac Newton]] published his [[Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica|''Principia Mathematica'']], an exhaustive work that laid the foundation for what we know today as classical mechanics. In this work, Newton advanced his [[Law of Universal Gravitation|law of universal gravitation]]. Whereas Galileo described gravitation in terms of motion, Newton described it in terms of a [[Force|force]]. Gravitation itself went from the natural tendency of objects to fall to a vector [[Field theory|field theory]] in which the force between two objects was inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Newton's vector equation for gravitation states that each particle in the [[universe]] attracts another particle with a force directly [[proportion]]al to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the [[exponentiation|square]] of the distance between them<ref>Serway and Beichner, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, Fifth Edition</ref>, or:

:<math>\mathbf{F} = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{\vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert ^2} \mathbf{\hat{r}}</math>

Where:

*''F'' is the gravitational force vector.

*''m''1 and ''m''2 are the object's masses.

*''r'' is the vector that separates the objects' centers of mass.

* <math>\mathbf{\hat{r}}</math> is the unit vector of ''r''; <math>\mathbf{r} = \vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert \ \mathbf{\hat{r}}</math>

*''G'' is the [[gravitational constant]]: <math>\frac{6.67428 \times 10^{-11} N m^2}{kg^2}</math>

Another way to express this equation, that is more convenient for programming and expansion into power series, is:

:<math>\mathbf{F} = -G \frac{m_1 m_2}{\vert {\mathbf{r}} \vert ^3} \mathbf{r}</math>

Near the surface of the Earth, where the difference in gravitational acceleration at different heights is very small, Newtonian gravitation "reduces" to, or is mathematically equivalent to within a known margin of error, Galilean gravitation. That is, both Galilean gravitation and Newtonian gravitation can reasonably describe the motion of falling apples and artillery shells. But further from the surface of the Earth, the errors in Galileo's approximation become too great, and Newton's model is required.

Newton's theory of gravitation stood, refined and reformulated, but essentially unchanged, for more than two centuries.

=== Einsteinian Gravitation ===

In 1915, [[Albert Einstein]] published his [[general theory of relativity]], a radical reinterpretation of the phenomenon of gravitation. Whereas Galileo described gravity in terms of motion, and Newton described gravity in terms of force, Einstein described gravity in terms of inertial motion in curved spacetime, such curvature being a function of the matter and fields in a given region. In the famous words of physicist John Wheeler, "Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move."<ref>Misner, Thorne & Wheeler. Gravitation. (1973)</ref>

Just as the Newtonian theory reduced to Galilean gravitation near the surface of the Earth, Einstein's theory of gravitation reduces to Newtonian gravity where gravitational fields are relatively weak. Only when gravitational fields are strong, such as the field around the sun within the orbit of [[Mercury]], do Newton's equations fail to produce a good approximation of reality.

=== The Possibility of Quantum Gravitation ===

During the era when Newtonian gravity was preeminent, gravitation was considered to be one of the "fundamental forces of nature," along with electricity, magnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Over the years, this interpretation has fallen out of favor, for a variety of reasons. Research into [[electrodynamics]] revealed the electric and magnetic forces to be two aspects of the same thing, and [[quantum mechanics]] described the strong and weak forces in terms of interactions mediated by [[Boson|bosons]]. Further research into [[quantum chromodynamics]] and the [[Standard Model]] increased our understanding of how electromagnetism and the nuclear forces work, but gravitation remained a thing apart.

Over the past few decades, attention has been turned toward formulating a [[Quantum gravity|quantum field theory of gravity]] which would describe the gravitational interaction in terms of a mechanism similar to the electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear interactions.

Physicists do not universally agree that a quantum theory of gravity is inevitable, or even possible. Einstein's theory of gravitation described gravity in a way that is so fundamentally different from the other interactions in nature that many physicists no longer gravity to be a force at all. Rather, under the Einsteinian interpretation, gravitation is an inherent property of spacetime and has no analogue at the quantum level at all. Other physicists believe that the Einsteinian interpretation is merely a useful large-scale approximation of an interaction which we have not yet detected on the subatomic scale.

To date, no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity has been advanced, but research continues.

==External Links==
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i3/gravity.asp   Gravity: The Mystery Force]
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/Newton_Universal_Gravity_Law.shtml   Newton's Universal Law of Gravitational Force]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:physics]]

Ethanol

2010-07-19T13:09:43Z

Sunda62: /* Ethanol Industry */ sugar as a catalyst??? rewriting this nonsense

'''Ethanol''', also known as [[grain alcohol]] and ethyl alchohol, is a flammable [[chemical compound]] with a strong [[odor]], and is the primary [[alcohol]] found in [[alcoholic beverage]]s. In common usage, it is often referred to simply as alcohol. The chemical formula is variously represented as EtOH, CH3CH2OH, C2H5OH.

Ethanol is also a [[biofuel]] made from [[alcohol]] and is an [[oxygenate]] that is added to [[gasoline]] to increase the [[octane]] rating. The product is produced through the [[fermentation]] of [[corn]], or other cellulosic material.

However, it is not economically viable as a fuel: "corn requires 29% more [[fossil energy]] than the fuel produced". [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.7]

==Processes==

Ethanol for use in [[alcoholic beverage]]s, and the vast majority of ethanol for use as fuel, is produced by fermentation: when certain species of [[yeast]] (most importantly, ''[[Saccharomyces cerevisiae]]'') [[metabolism|metabolize]] [[saccharide|sugar]] in the absence of [[oxygen]], they produce ethanol and [[carbon dioxide]]. The overall chemical reaction conducted by the yeast may be represented by the chemical equation

: [[glucose|C6H12O6]] → 2 CH3CH2OH + 2 [[carbon dioxide|CO2]]

The process of culturing yeast under conditions to produce alcohol is referred to as [[brewing]]. Brewing can only produce relatively dilute concentrations of ethanol in water; concentrated ethanol solutions are [[toxicity|toxic]] to yeast. The most ethanol-tolerant strains of yeast can survive in up to about 15% ethanol by volume.

During the fermentation process, it is important to prevent oxygen from getting to the ethanol, since otherwise the ethanol would be oxidised to [[acetic acid]] (vinegar). Also, in the presence of oxygen, the yeast would undergo [[aerobic respiration]] to produce just [[carbon dioxide]] and water, without producing ethanol.

In order to produce ethanol from starchy materials such as [[cereal grain]]s, the starch must first be broken down into sugars. In brewing [[beer]], this has traditionally been accomplished allowing the grain to germinate, or [[malt]]. In the process of germination, the seed produces [[enzyme]]s that can break its starches into sugars.

Ethanol is also produced by the catalytic hydration of ethylene. Crude oil is catalytically 'cracked' to ethylene and the ethylene is chemically combined with water at high temperatures with an acid catalyst. This process is actually cheaper than fermentation,
but has become less common as ethanol produced from corn is heavily subsidized by the federal government.
==Co-products==

A co-product of the fermentation process is [[distillers grains]] which can be used as cattle feed. Distillers grains is termed either [[wet distillers grains]] or [[dried distillers grains]] or simply [[DDGs]]. Wet distillers grains have a very short shelf life as they are susceptible to microorganisms that can pollute the material and render it unfit for cattle consumption.

==Ethanol Industry==
[[Image:684.jpg|right|thumb|From biomass to ethanol.|400px]]
In the [[United States]] ethanol is most commonly made through the fermentation of corn. Other countries, such as [[Brazil]], use [[sugarcane]] as a [[feedstock]] for the production of ethanol. Currently, the US has the highest production numbers for ethanol in the world, but some analysts forecast China as being a potential world player in the ethanol market. [[China]] currently uses [[casava]] and [[wheat]] among other material for producing ethanol.

==Controversy==

Some in the [[Food vs. Fuel]] debate consider the use of a high-energy food crop, such as corn, detrimental to our food supply. In particular, [[Lester Brown]] of the [[Earth Policy Institute]] is known for advocating this position.

The latest automotive grade of ethanol in Canada has 1% water. This is specified by the CSB, the Canadian Standards Board. Water is terrible for any fuel injection system and will probably lead to corrosion of the fuel injectors and fuel pumps.

The auto fuel ethanol government standards in Brazil, do not allow any water.

One major gasoline wholesaler and retailer in Canada has used 8% ethanol in all its grades of gasoline for over 10 years because it was one of the cheapest ways to boost the octane rating of gasoline. The R+M rating of ethanol is 104.

Ethanol has about 36% oxygen by weight whereas normal gasoline has no oxygen.
This is why a car runs much smoother at very low temperatures during the first 2 or 3 minutes as the oxygen content in ethanol enhanced gasoline allows a hotter, cleaner burn.

==See also==
*[[Ethenol]]

[[Category:Organic Chemistry]]

Octane

2010-07-16T14:55:57Z

Sunda62: 2,2,4-trimethyl-pentane is not the most branched (there are isomers of octane with octane rating > 100), and the name isooactane is wrong

'''Octane''' is a [[hydrocarbon]] found in [[petroleum]]. It has eight linked carbon atoms which may form a straight chain, various branched chains, or, in the case of cyclooctane, a ring. The straight and branched varieties share the same chemical formula and are therefore structural isomers. One highly branched form, 2,2,4-trimethyl-pentane, innacurately named isooctane (which would be 2-methyl-heptane), has excellent anti-knock properties when burned in an internal-combustion engine, and its properties are used to calibrate the Octane rating of motor fuels. Isooctane is rated 100 on the octane scale and n-heptane, a hydrocarbon with very poor anti-knock properties, is rated 0.

[[Category:Organic Chemistry]]

Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?

2010-07-13T19:33:03Z

Sunda62: /* Civil partnerships rather than marriages */

{{Debate-religion}}
{{Debate-politics}}
{{Debate}}
This is basically a forum. You can chat with your friends, and reminise with them about that special person that you will never meet because you were too busy here answering if gay marrage should be legaized. So, answer. The sooner you do, the faster you might meet that special someone. 
 
==Yes==
Yes, it should be allowed. For all too long, there has been discrimination in this country. For instance, racism was considered normal for a long time. However, although people might think that there is no discrimination going on in America today, there is prejudice against the homosexual population. The discrimination is that they are denied their free right to, well, equal rights. The right of being married. One of this country's fundimental principals was to have everyone come here and be equals. Although that promise wasn't nessicerally held up (slaves are still people, yet they were still imprisoned for many years after this country was founded), do we need to fight another war in order to try to get homosexual marrage allowed (a very long strech, but you get the point). Discrimination was tolerated at one point in America. Can't we leave that point behind us? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

You say it should be legalized because of equality. But, it’s because of equality that it shouldn’t be legalized. Homosexuals already have the exact same rights as heterosexuals. A homosexual man can marry any woman he chooses (assuming that she is of legal age and is consenting) just as any heterosexual man can. They already have the exact same rights. Allowing homosexuals to marry one another would be giving them special rights based on a behavioral preference. They choose to engage in homosexuality. Note that when I say they’re “choosing”, I’m not talking about whether they’re born that way or not. I mean they’re choosing their lifestyle. Born that way or not, they still choose to engage in that particular sexual behavior, just like heterosexuals choose to engage in their sexual acts. So, it is a behavioral choice, and legalizing it would be giving them a special right based on a behavior. That is inequality. [[User:BillyJ|BillyJ]] 01:44, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't quite see why they would marry someone that is heterosexual if they are homosexual. I mean, look at it this way. Let's say that it was illigal for everyone that was not Roman Catholic to be married. Should it not be legalized for other religons to do that. Because, I mean, religion is simply the truth that you prefer to believe (for catholics, it is that Jesus was the messiah, for example). Should it not be legal for other religions to marry, even though they prefer not to be Roman Catholics? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

The point is that they can marry. You're giving examples of people who can't marry at all, but that doesn't fit the current scenario of things. Homosexuals might not want to marry the opposite gender, but they have the right to, just like a heterosexual person can. The point is that they all have the same rights, and to allow them to wed the same sex would be to give out special rights. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:05, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Yes, homosexuals can marry those of opposite gender, but, if gay marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will be able to marry people of the same gender, so everyone will still have equal rights. If gay marriage doesn't hurt anybody, why shouldn't it be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:11, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Because you're giving out rights based on a behavioral preference. It's saying, "I prefer to do this, so it should be legal because I want to do it." Besides, who says that gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone? I would dispute that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:26, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

If you want to do something why shouldn't it be legal? The only answer I can think of is if it hurts someone. If gay marriage indeed hurts someone, who does it hurt? (And I'm not giving out rights based on behavioral preference; everyone would get the right to a homosexual marriage just like everyone gets the right to a heterosexual marriage.) [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:32, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

It hurts society. We already have moral standards that are in place that have been there a long time. The standard for marriage is one man and one woman who are of legal age. If we redefine the standard, then we move the line back a little. If you set the precedence that it's okay to move that line in regards to morality as we see fit, then where does it end? Polygamy? Bestiality? Pedophilia? And it is a special right, because it is giving out a right because a particular group of people hold to that behavior. It's like drug users who want drugs to be legalized because they like to use them. That's giving in to a person's behavior. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:40, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Actually, the Biblical standard for marriage is "One man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford". You need to start getting all huffy about how abandoning this Godly standard has hurt our country. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Is society really hurt just because it stops reflecting your morals? There have been other opinions that had "been there a long time" before they got changed: see [[slavery]]. The government has to protect its citizens and residents and so it cannot allow bestiality or pedophilia because neither a (non-human) animal nor a child is mentally capable of consenting to sex. Polygamy is a little trickier. While I don't object to it in principle, it generally seems to lead to abusive husbands and male-dominated societies and so the government could certainly outlaw it.
And homosexuality is not like drug use because drug users actually ''do'' harm society; they make roads more dangerous and tend to commit more crimes than non-drug users. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:56, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::Don't forget that [[Miscegenation]] used to be illegal, too. :-P --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

How are you asking that first question? Are you asking my morals in particular, or in a generalistic sense? If it's my morals that society no longer reflects, well, I think it's morally wrong to steal, rape, murder, etc. So, yea, socitey would be hurt real bad. What I'm saying about changing values is that it makes things easier to pass that were at one time considered terrible. Let me give you an example:

An 18 year old can marry anyone they want without their parents permission. But, a 17 year old can't. But is a 17 year old that much different from an 18 year old? Most would say they're not. So shouldn't a 17 year old be able to marry as he chooses as well? Really, that makes pretty good sense. But, a 16 year old isn't that different from a 17 year old, so why can't he marry as he wants? And on and on it goes until you get to, "Well, a 5 year old isn't that much different than a 6 year old, so hey should be able to get married." My point is that it's just a real slippery sloap. Simillarly, how do you tell the very next thing after homosexuality that they can't when you just made the exception for homosexuals? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:07, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

To answer your first question, yes, I am asking about your morals. I really don't care what society thinks. If society thinks that it is okay to steal, rape, and murder, I don't care. I do care about what the government thinks, because, even if society condones murder, people will not be allowed to murder each other as long as the government opposes it. The government does not need any moral standard to outlaw theft, rape, and murder, as I said before: the government has to protect its citizens. As a result, the government should, and would, outlaw theft, rape, and murder without any morals.

As to your slippery slope example, in 1971 the minimun voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. 37 years later, there are still no supporters of suffrage for 15 year olds. I can't see why allowing gay marriage would be so different. Finally, I haven't made an exception for homosexuals until you prove that they harm society. If you do that I will oppose gay marriage. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:31, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait. Government doesn't need any moral standards? I disagree. There have been lots of governments that kill their own citizens when it's convenient for them to do so. Everybody needs an objective standard, otherwise your just making you morals up out of your own preferences. The voting age was changed from 21 to 18 because 18 years olds were dieing in Vietnam but couldn't elect the officials who sent them there. That made no sense. The reason it isn't continuing to be lowered is because people realize that there must be some standard. If you lower to 17, then why not 16. If 16, why not 15? But we realize that you have to keep some standard otherwise where does it end? The same goes for marriage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:41, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

I would like to add something. If the government does not have any moral stadards, then the government will end up deciding to destroy it's people and if anyone speeks out against it, then they will stop at nothing to make sure you will not say anything. However, I would like to say this. In a way, heterosexual marrages are based upon one's behavioral preferance. For instance, let's say that a man likes women. Isn't that a preference? Why, then should a homosexual not be able to marry because of their behavioral preference? --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::"Because gays are icky" seems to be the basis for all the arguments I've heard. If these folks REALLY think that gay marriage will Destroy the Institution of Marriage (possibly by giving it AIDS), you have to wonder why they don't try to outlaw [[Divorce]], FIRST. There are a LOT more divorced heterosexuals than there are gays, period.
::Especially [http://www.acupofambition.com/index.php?s=marriages celebrity marriages]! They're doing more damage to the Sacredness of Marriage than all they homosexuals in the world could. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:30, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

Ultimahero, my morals say that it is wrong to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Since these are the same morals that are against pedophilia, wouldn't your slippery slope argument say that we must allow gay marriage or risk pedophilia becoming legal? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let me try to hit all those points one at a time. First off, yes, people being involved in heterosexual relationships is a behavioral preference, too. But, it's a little different in the sense that heterosexuality is generally considered to be the natural way. It's what we predominantly see in nature, the male and female bodies are obviously meant to couple, the vast majority of people are heterosexual, etc. So, my argument is that there's the so called "normal" way that has been perfectly accepted and legal since this nation's foundation, and everyone is given the same rights to perform that way. Then there is another lifestyle that is only preformed by a small minority, and they are engaging in an activity which they choose to do. (Not the choice to be gay, but the choice to "act" gay, or to engage in that behavior.) So for it to be asked that this alternative choice be given just as much legitimacy as the first option is somewhat of a push. It's almost as if homosexuals are saying "we choose to act differently then you, but we want you to treat us like we're not." But wait. Your making that choice, not me. I don't force it on you. You do it by your own free will. You can't turn around and then act like your not making that choice. That's having your cake and eating it too.

I can't speak for all, but I'm not against homosexuality because it's "icky". I'm against it because I believe it's morally wrong. Yes, divorce is bad, too. People treat marriage far too flippantly, with the attitude of, "if it doesn't work, we'll get a divorce". That's wrong, too. But the problem is that there are some scenarios where divorce could be legitimate. In cases of unfaithful partners, abusive spouses, etc. So there are cases that make it impossible to outlaw divorce.

I think that I get your point about turning my slippery slope argument against me. (Correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.) No, the slippery slope doesn't occur because of my personal values or yours. It occurs because of what is already in place in society. What there is one man, one woman of legal age and they consent. That's the standard. So if you lower that standard to suit homosexual marriage, then where does it end? The slippery slope has to do with what's already in the society, not my personal beliefs. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 02:03, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, so we're talking about society's morals then. But wouldn't the slippery slope mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

The argument is that anything will be allowed if you get on the slippery slope, because once you start down it there's no real way to stop. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Is that a yes then? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 19:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry; I think I'm missing the question. Yes to what? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 19:15, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Wouldn't the slippery slope argument mean that nothing that society disapproves of could ever be allowed? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:00, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. The slippery slope is saying that if you get onto that road then you can't stop any possible outcome that fits within that context. Things still could get passed and changed, because society could get on the slope. It's just a caution for society to be careful of which way it heads because it might not like where it ends up. But it still could change and allow things. That's why the argument is there. There's no point in arguing it if it can't change anyway. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:20, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Incestuous relationships: "but they love each other shouldn't they be allowed to marry whoever they want without any circumstances that is discrimination they love each other but you won't let them marry it may not be the ideal but how could you prevent two people who really love each other from marrying, marriage is based on love, is it not, honestly why do you care what they do in their bedroom it is there business" It is the same argument as that of homosexual relationship, both are stupid views incestuous marriages and homosexual marriages -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Liberals don't think they follow their emotions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Immorality anywhere is a threat to morality anywhere, if you actually cared about homosexuals instead of the radical ones, you'd feel sorry for them according to Center for Disease Control, 71% of the people with HIV are homosexual, homosexuals are overrepresented for all STDs extensively-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 09:45, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps gay marriage would encourage monogomy and thus reduce STD's among homosexuals. Also I think the problem with incest is not a moral one but rather a genetic one. The children of close relatives are far more likely than others to get rare genetic diseases. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 00:44, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But even monogamy in a homosexual relationship can lead to STD's. As for the incest thing, you're right. Even from a Biblical standpoint that's the view. Early on in creation it was okay for brothers and sisters to marry. How else could the Earth be populated by two people? Cain had to marry his sister. But back then the genetic line was pure enough to allow for that sort of thing, where now it is not. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:53, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

STD's can be transmitted in even in a monogomous relationship (homosexual or heterosexual), but it is far less likely than if someone has many different partners. The odds of 1 in 2 people having an STD are far less than the odds of, say, 1 in 10 [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

Certainly. But the form of sexual intercourse with the highest STD rate would be anal. I know both heterosexual and homosexual couples are capable of that, but homosexuals are more likely to engage in it because, well, count the holes... [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Question, why do you even care about gays having STDs? That is our problem to deal with, not yours. We can't have children (not biologically anyway) so we cannot pass it on, we are gay and therefore will not engage in sex with heterosexual persons, and thus won't spread it within the heterosexual community (which is all you seem to care about). Thus, why does it even matter to you? What business is it to you if a person (gay or straight) gets a STD. That is their problem to deal with, not yours. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 6:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first of all someone else raised the point and I was simply addressing it. Secondly, it can be passed on, just not through hereditary means. Say someone with HIV gave blood and it got passed on, that would be a problem. (I know that's unlikely because they test for that stuff before they take blood, but I'm just saying it can still be passed by means other than sex.) Thirdly, I care because I don't want gay people to get diseases. It may not have a direct impact on me, but I still don't want them to be sick. I don't like homosexuality and I think it's wrong, but I don't want them to get sick and die. I care about a lot of things that don't necessarily impact me. Children starving to death in Africa doesn't affect me personally, but I still care about them and don't want it to happen. People I don't know who go to Hell might not affect me personally, but I still don't want them to have to suffer like that. I think it‘s just a sign of humanity to care about other people.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It is fine to "care" about other people, but not when it negatively impacts their lives. Starving children in Africa will not deny your help or aid because they want it, and it makes their lives better. People's interference with private social lives, however, is not wanted. And just a FYI, under current law, any individual with a same-sex sexual experience since 1977 cannot give blood. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:43, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Who said anything about interfering with your life? That's putting words in my mouth. You have every right to live that way if you want to. I care about homosexuals and don't want them to get diseases, but I fully recognize that individuals have the right to make their own choices. Where the discrepancy comes up is when we're dealing with legalizing it and it becoming a societal factor. That's when it interferes with my life and negatively impacts me. That's when I have to say "no." [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:36, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is, why is it alright to negatively impact my life, but not yours. What makes the negative impact of my life so inferior to yours that it is okay for mine to continue, but it is an abomination that your life is somehow impacted. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 12:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not. I'm not trying to negatively impact your life. That's why I don't push for homosexuality to be made illegal. (As some people have suggested be done.) Your have the right to live that way if you want. But, it's not fair to negatively impact my life, either. That's why I'm against it being legalized and pushed onto society. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:02, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You may not specifically be trying to negatively impact my life (as neither am I) but you are in your attempts to prevent such legislature legalizing gay marriage. So my question still stands, why is the negative impact on your life worse than the negative impact on mine? Considering just what legally will change, it seems that the negative impact on my life is greater than yours. You will loose no rights whatsoever, you will not have to recognize gay marriages in a religious sense. The gay community, however, is suffering from inability to receive benefits of legally married couples such as child custody protection, inheritance priority, and visitation rights. Unless if you are some form of insurance representative, or a member of any other such industry that would change due to gay marriage, your life is not effected directly at all. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Define negative impact. Because a child molester could say, "Hey, you're not allowing me to legally molests kids! I consider that a negative impact on me!" (I'm certainly not trying to say homosexuals are the same as child molesters, just making an analogy.) The point is that society has determined that there are certain things that have a negative impact on society so those things aren't acceptable. The whole point of this debate is why you should now be able to do something that was previously unacceptable. You might not like the status, but you have to prove why homosexuality should be accepted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. And it does affect me, as I've explained numerous times. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:43, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:I think this conversation keeps going off onto tangents about slippery slopes, child molestation and allowing 6-year-olds to marry, so let me ask this succinctly and hopefully I'll get a succinct answer in return.
:I'm in favor of allowing same-sex marriage because when you strip away all the rhetoric and politics, it's simply about letting two people who love each other and are dedicated to a relationship together solemnize their commitment, and enjoy the same legal rights as any other couple the state considers "legally married". The gender of the individuals in this commitment should matter as much to the government as their race (not at all), because it has no bearing on their ability to be a functional couple or good citizens. Even the mostly conservative/republican judges in California understood that when you define something like "domestic partnership" to be separate but equal to "marriage", it enables ''society' to discriminate anyway regardless of the law, so it's not equal in the end.
:One hundred years ago, interracial marriage was illegal in many places because it violated the traditions and norms of society. This is no longer the case because it's clear that interracial marriage itself causes no actual harm to society, so there is no legitimate basis in law to deny the legal benefits of marriage to mixed-race couples. Arguing that marriage does not apply to same-sex couples because they cannot bear children on their own is invalid as well - the government does not require fertility before marrying men and women.
:My simple question to the opponents of same-sex marriage is this, then: ''If you remove "religion" and "tradition" as reasons for a government to establish law granting equal rights, what is the objective, quantifiable harm that is done to society by allowing two people to be legally married, with as little regard for gender as there is for race?''"--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:51, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If two people should be allowed to marry because they "love each other", then by that definition two kids should be able to marry as long as they "love each other". That's not a tangent, it's using the same logic to bring up a valid point. Don't even look at it from a religious standpoint. Would kids getting married be a good thing? No. So, if you say two people love each other and that's all that matters, then anyone should be able to marry as long as they love each other. That logic is simply flawed.

No, race and sexual orientation is different. Race is something you have no control over, where as sexual orientation you do. (I'm not saying you can choose your sexuality, but you can choose to act on it. No one forces two homosexuals to engage in homosexual behavior, so it is a choice. On the other hand, you can't "act black", etc. So there's an obvious difference.)

Alright, completely outside of religion or tradition. Would two homosexuals be as good at raising kids as two heterosexuals? No. Ideally, you need a mom and dad.

Besides, legalizing homosexuality is forcing it upon the rest of us. Want to talk about California? Okay. When the people vote and 61% say they don't want homosexuals to marry, and then despite this, four people on court bench say "regardless of what the people want, we're going to ignore them and do what we want." Four people can overrule 61% of the largest state in the nation. That's forcing it on others. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:43, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Four people can overrule the legislation because that is their job. Our government was set up in the way it is as system of checks and balances. The founding fathers recognized what is known as the "tyranny of the majority" and established federal and state supreme courts on that basis, as a check of the people. The people can, and will, vote for a constitutional amendment (California's in November) which the SCOC cannot touch. "The rights of the minority should never be restricted by the majority." As per the child argument, you again are warping the argument presented by DinsDaleP and myself. The key point is that homosexuals are legal adults. Now you may claim that one day the marriage age will be dropped, which, though I don't foresee it, is possible. But the key there is that it will be dropped for both gay and straight couples. We are not asking for rights that only apply to us, but an extension of all citizens rights. Currently all citizens (above the age of 18) can marry the opposite sex. If gay marriage is legislated, all citizens (above the age of 18) will be able to marry both sexes. It is not special rights, you will get them too. To the argument "but I am not gay, I do not want those rights" well I am not straight, I don't want the right to marry the opposite sex. The actual legal argument against gay marriage is pretty tenuous. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 16:23 21 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ultimahero, AndrasK made the same point about age that I would have - it's misdirection to add in age as a factor when we're talking about the rights of legal adults. That's why kids don't vote, drink or drive cars. It's true that you don't choose race, but even if you accept that sexual orientation is a choice and not a preference some are born with, so what? We choose our religions, and as adults, any male-female couple of any religion (or atheists for that matter) can get married without the state weighing in.

::Ideally, you need parents who love and support you, who help you grow to be a happy, productive and well-adjusted adult. Many single parents raise their kids great, and many male-female couples raise their kids terribly. Your assumption that kids would be raised best by a pair of male-female parents is based on opinion, not fact. There's a lot more to being a good parent than gender or gender-orientation, and the government does not make parenting skills a criteria for getting married (although it'd be a good thing if it did).

::Finally, I don't see how allowing same-sex marriage forces anything on you. You can marry whoever you want, and you don't have to associate with anyone you don't want to either. We all hear people using their first amendment rights to express ideas that may offend us, but we're not harmed by the words themselves. In the same way, you need to accept that responsible, law-abiding adults should have a right to marry who they want because their marriage may offend you, but it isn't hurting you. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:41, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

Trust me, I know all about how the government is set up. The judiciary is all about interpreting the law. If something violates the Constitution, then the court can rightfully say a law is unconstitutional. But, if something is not addressed, then it is left up to the people of the states to decide what should happen. (As per the 10th Amendment.) So I ask you: is marriage ever defined in the Constitution? The answer is no, it’s not. So, since that isn’t brought up, then it’s left up to the people of the states to determine who should marry. And in California 61% of the people said they want for marriage to remain between one man and one woman. 61%. That is a solid majority. So when the courts overrule that, that isn’t overruling an unjust law. That’s liberal activism; judicial tyranny. Tyranny is when a view held by a few is forced on the whole. That’s exactly what’s happening here. We are being forced to accept something that is absolutely wrong and that we don’t want. That is unconstitutional.

No, I’m not warping the child argument. You’re missing my point, or perhaps I’m not being clear enough. I’m not saying that the age limit is going to be dropped. What I’m saying is that if someone says that “love is all that matters”, then by that definition anyone who loves someone else should be able to marry. (I know you personally acknowledge that there are other factors involved, as we have already had this discussion.) I use the child argument as an example, but there’s a lot dog things I could use. I could say that as long as I love my dog and it loves me, we should be able to marry. I could say as long as me and my fifty girlfriends love one another, we should be able to marry. Heck, I could say that as long as my table and I love each other we should be able to marry. I know those are extreme examples, but I’m trying to illustrate why “love” isn’t a sufficient requirement. I’m simply asking you for a better definition.

Yes, we could all get the same rights if homosexuality is legalized. But, by that argument I suppose we could say that is car theft is legalized, then it won’t benefit just the thieves because we all have that right now. Obviously, that erroneous. Just because we can make something legal doesn’t mean we should. Legal doesn’t mean it’s beneficial or good. I’d argue homosexuality would hurt society (a claim which I know you will inherently disagree with) and that’s why it shouldn’t be legalized.

To DinsdaleP:

Again, I was trying to demonstrate the fallacy of using “love” as requirement. It simply doesn’t work because there are to many problems with that. You need better requirements to determine who should marry other than “love”.

Comparing people’s religions when they are getting married to when there sexual orientation is like comparing apples to oranges. They’re different categories. It doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are when you get married. Two Atheists heterosexuals who wed is fine. One’s religion is irrelevant. But, the gender and sexual orientation of a person isn’t. I would argue that a mom-dad couple is the ideal partnership. Boys need a fatherly influence to see how a man should act, and a girl needs a motherly influence to see how a woman should act. And, kids need to see how men and women interact in a healthy relationship. So if they be Atheists, Christians, etc., heterosexual couples still provide that example, whereas homosexuals don’t. (Besides, we can debate whether or not homosexuality is Constitutionally protected, but there is no debate that religion is.)

Heterosexuality can be terrible parents, certainly. And I’m not saying it’s impossible for homosexuals to be good parents. I am saying that male-female parents are the ideal thing. (For the reasons I mentioned in the above paragraph, as well as others.) Doe it always work that way? No. But just because something doesn’t always work doesn’t mean you abandon it. For example, we have laws against rape, murder etc. Those laws don’t always bring successful results, but that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the laws. (Again, it’s an extreme example, but it serves a point.)

It does force it on me. First, it’s an attempt to force those moral on me. Secondly, if the laws says that homosexuals can be married, then that means that anyone who refuses to recognize that is guilty of discrimination and is breaking the law. And who might object? Churches. If a church refuses to perform a marital service for two homosexuals, then that legally qualifies as sexual orientation discrimination. Churches can be sued, fined, etc. So that is forcing it on me. When these things get taken into the schools, with classes on “the homosexual struggle” being taught alongside the black and women’s movements, then that is forcing it on me and my family. So it is forcing it on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Love is not the only requirement for a marriage. Love ''and'' consent are. The only argument you've given, or at least that I've seen, for homosexuality harming society is that it goes against society's morals. I still do not see, however, how that actually harms society. As for forcing churches to marry homosexuals, I am unaware of any law that forces churches to marry anyone who asks to be married. If you know of one, please, show me. Finially no morals are forced on you. You are more than welcome to dislike homosexuality and consider it immoral. No one is trying to take that right from you. All homosexuals want is their right to marry. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:37, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. Love and consent. A child can love someone and give consent. That brings us right back to where we were.

I’ve offered many arguments. One is that it does lower the morals of society and make things easier to get through in the future. I also pointed out that homosexuals aren’t the best parenting couples. I’ve said that it’s giving special rights out for a personal behavioral preference. I’ve said that churches will be in serious legal trouble if homosexuality is legalized. Whether you agree or not, I’ve offered a lot.

There doesn’t nee to be any additional law specifically saying churches must administer marriages. The law would be that homosexuals can be married the same as heterosexuals. So, if a church refuses to marry two homosexuals, then the homosexual couple could sue over discriminatory purposes. They could argue that since legally they have the same rights, then their legal right is being denied. Just like a discrimination suit could come in a work place over not hiring a homosexual, a lawsuit could come just the same against a church for “discriminating against homosexuals legal rights.” Churches can’t disobey the law, and could be forced to obey with fines, jail time, etc.

It does force morals on me. The church thing, as I already mentioned. Also, a churches could be forced to hire openly homosexual personnel. If they don’t, then that would be called discrimination. It’s in the schools being presented as an “acceptable alternative lifestyle”. You don’t want to force it on me? Fine. Get it out of schools and away from children and then I’ll believe you. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:54, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, a child cannot LEGALLY consent to ANYTHING. Keyword is LEGAL. Unless if Congress LEGALLY lowers the legal adult age, the child argument is null. The church argument, a marriage in a church is in no form a legal contract. What legally marries a couple is the marriage license that they must apply for and obtain from the government. That is civil marriage, religious marriage has no standing in a legal sense without that document. A person can have the entire ceremony and be married in the eyes of the church but not the law. As the Church does not provide the legal aspect of the marriage, just the religious one, there would be no grounds for a discrimination lawsuit against a church. If you don't want your children in public schools, take them out. I personally think it is a poor choice, but it is your right as a parent to do such. I laugh at how this site thinks that public schools are so gay-friendly and "promoting homosexuality." Have any of you ever even stepped foot in a school? Have any of you ever experienced what it is like to be gay in public schools? It is laughable honestly. Not only that, it is arrogant and superior. You claim we try and force our morals on you, but then you try and do the same exact thing with yours. We are at least willing to look at things from a purely legal standpoint, as is necessary to remove religion from the legislature. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 00:13 22 May 2008 (EDT)

If the keyword is legal, then let’s end the debate because homosexual marriage is not legal. Debate over, I guess… No, the point isn’t null, because we’re talking in a future hypothetical sense about all of this. But if the child thing really bugs you, then I can switch to a polygamist standpoint or bestiality, etc. Any of things would be legitimate if love is all that matters. Again, I know you personally don’t hold to that view. But others have presented that and that’s what I’m arguing against. The church marriage service may not be relevant in the legalistic sense, but it still could be argued as discrimination. If a church refuses to recognize homosexuals, they could respond that it is a violation of there legal rights and based on “discriminatory” purpose. So are you saying that homosexuality should be pushed in public schools? I think that’s a poor choice. I wouldn’t argue that we should promote anything anti-homosexual in the schools. That’s simply not something you force on kids. (What you teach your own kids in your home, that’s your business and your free to choose. But in the school that’s different.) And who said that I had kids? You’re making an assumption. I actually just graduated from a public high school last year, so I’ve definitely stepped foot in a school. And in junior year US History, we were taught civil rights. And at the end of the segment was a homosexual unit. (I’ll point out for clarification that we didn’t finish it due to time constraints, but it was there nonetheless.) No, I don’t force my morals on you. I don’t support outlawing homosexuality or throwing homosexuals in jail. What you do in your own house is your business. But it’s when you want to go beyond that and bring it out in the open, where it automatically becomes my business, that it’s forced on me. When it’s in the schools is when it’s forced on me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:27, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because something is not legal currently does not make it a null argument....that is the entire point of debating; we are debating if it SHOULD be legal. As to the polygamist standpoint, I personally would not oppose such legislation. Polygamy, however, presents MUCH larger legal problems than gay marriage, in that the legal infrastructure is set up to handle a two-member couple (Spouse 1 and spouse 2). Inheritance rights, visiting rights, custody rights, tax exemptions etc are designed in a two-person marriage. So while I do not oppose polygamy (I personally am not a polygamist) on the basis that the government should have no right to restrict activities that do not directly effect others. Bestiality, like child marriage, is a null argument in that animals cannot legally consent. When we say consent, we do not mean the physical ability (which animals still lack) but the legal authority to do so. As to the discrimination against the Church, you keep saying gays will say its "discrimination" but discrimination on what grounds. The topic of this debate is gay marriage, not sexual orientation as a hate crime basis or any other anti-discrimination measure (which is another topic entirely). I have already established that legalizing gay marriage will offer no legal basis for discrimination lawsuits on the fact that churchs have no legal standing in marriage already. Gays could indeed sue the government for discriminatory practices, but not churchs because churchs are under no legal obligation to perform any wedding (straight or gay). I did not mean to assume you had kids, sorry I read your respoonse at 12AM and read the line "keep it away from kids" as "keep it away from my kids." A simple error. As to the homosexual unit in your history class, that is not promoting homosexuality or trying to force any form of morality into you, it is presenting historical fact. Homosexuals, just like African Americans, Women, Whites, Indians, or ANY other group (and don't tell me we don't learn about straight or white history because learning US history is basically learning the history of straight, white males, as they have had almost all the power since the creation of the nation). It would be historically ignorant NOT to mention homosexuals in history class as they played a role in history. This is not 1984, you cannot just remove portions of history and call them insignificant or non-existent. The homosexual movement has, and continues to have, a role in American history, and it is ignorant to say we can just ignore that because its a "controversial" issue. Should we remove learning about African Americans in history because it is pushing African Americans into the classroom and upsetting the racist (not accusing you of being racist, just using this as an example), of course not. It is important to try and learn history in its entirety, it is then we can truly learn from it in seeing how every individual aspect fit together to form the chain of events of history. The "it's in schools and therefore forced upon me" argument could be used to remove the teaching of ANYTHING. I dislike Irish authors, I think that they are a scourge upon the Earth and are harmful to American society, does that mean that we should stop teaching Joyce? Think about what you are implying with your words. You are implying that just because an individual does not like something, means it should stop being discussed or studied. I personally don't like the Catholic Church (surprised?) but I learned about it almost every day in World History. Did I particularly want to learn the history of the church? No. But I recognized its vast importance in the history of the world, got over my dislike because I KNEW that it was important to learn if I was to understand human history. Just because something is not like, does not remove its historical importance. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 8:23 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Once again, AndrasK addressed many points I would have myself, so I'll just offer a "Nicely said!" and add a brief comment. Ultimahero, what keeps coming up in your statements is that your principal objection to same-sex marriage is not based on it causing any direct, material harm, but that it's based on offensiveness to your values. That's a legitimate reason to object to anything, and your values aren't being judged. What's key here is that in a free society, the best government is one that provides the greatest equality among people with the least intervention. The government is not going to tell a religion who it can and can't marry, but at the the same time, it shouldn't be telling two adults they can't be legally married based on their gender if all the other criteria for getting a marriage license are met. What the conservative, mostly-republican judges ruled is that society treats married people differently than unmarried people or "domestic partners", and that there's no compelling reason for the state to draw that distinction in law. Maturity and wisdom comes in part from accepting differences in others that we don't approve of, when those differences are not harming us in any material way. The older I get, the more I realize though my own experiences that I was wrong for judging people with different values in my youth, because I don't want to be judged for mine. (For example, I'm tired of being told I'm going to spend an eternity in Hell for not being a born-again Christian, and when I worked for one, I always wondered if that affected my reviews and promotions no matter how good my performance was). At this point in life, I appreciate the vision of Dr. King when he dreamed of a world where people were judged for the content of their character - period. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

To AndrasK:

The whole point of my arguing about polygamy, child marriage, etc. is simply to say that anything can be allowed if love is all that matters. We have already agreed previously that this is an insufficient standard, so I’m trying to continue this point with you. We’re already in agreement on that. Churches are under no obligation to perform marriage, but they can’t disregard the law. If homosexual marriage is legalized, then both they and heterosexuals will have the same legal rights. So, if the church permits one and refuses another, homosexuals could argue it as discrimination. There’s lot’s of examples like this. Businesses are under o obligation to provide whatever product they produce. Yet if a business were to come out and say “we refuse to serve gays”, would you honestly say that that would get taken to court at some point? It would be based on the fact that legally homosexuals have the right to marry, just like heterosexuals, yet churches only accept the latter. That could be discrimination, depending on your perspective.

Interesting perspective on the history fact. The problem is that is isn’t an unbiased presentation. The various black, women, etc. movements are presented with the underlying tone of, “see how wrong this was.” Which it should be. Slavery and oppression was wrong. But homosexuality doesn’t fit in that same category. Homosexuality isn’t being opposed out of prejudice (well, I suppose that some might be, but mot aren’t) but rather on moral grounds. If this were just unbiased issue, then it might not be that bad to simply learns facts of what have happened. But it never will be, because the people involved are just that: people. People, whether consciously or not, people will inject their own bias into this. True, I suppose on could say they don’t like anything and have it be taken out. But, ‘Irish authors’ or other things would not face realistic opposition. That, as well as most things, would face no serious risk f being removed. The church is not being presented along with theology and saying, “kids, Jesus died from your sins”. It’s simply being presented as a historical institution. I certainly agree that we shouldn’t take things out of discussion just because it’s controversial. But when you’re talking about a controversial moral issue, then is it right to take one side in the schools? I say it’s not. You and me talking about it? Fine. We’re two private citizens engaging in our own conversation. But a school is different. It’s influential kids who are by law required to go to school and sit in on those courses.

To DinsdaleP:

Yes, I am primarily opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds. I think it is wrong. Easy as that. But, when it comes to the overall society, I look at it differently. I think it will lower the overall values of society. I’m not looking at things from my moral, but a societal stance as a whole. I think homosexuals would not make as effective parents as heterosexuals. That’s not morality. That’s looking out for the well-being of kids. I worry about the ramifications on churches. That’s a legal stance. Yes, people can do whatever they want in there own homes. But, when it comes out into the streets and into the courts and into the classrooms, then it’s a different matter. I agree that people should have equality. But, that’s tricky because “equality” means different things depending on whose defining it. Obviously, you and I see it differently. You may not like being told that without Christ your going to Hell. Well, I don’t like constantly being told that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 12:15, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

:Okay, I think AndrasK and I have addressed the point that love is not all that matters where marriage is concerned, so tangents about polygamy, bestiality or loving one's table are not relevant. It's also a given that the government has no right to interfere in the practices of a religion, unless it involves criminal acts like statutory rape, human sacrifice, etc. Your have the right to your opinions, and it's not my place to declare them invalid. It's just that as a society, we have to have laws that are based on reason and not opinions. You can assert that homosexuality lowers the overall values of society, but I doubt you can prove it in any objective way.

:If you look at the stories about the 1950's and 1960's civil rights movement in the south, you'd see many examples of everyday citizens believing deeply that an unsegregated society would be worse off than a segregated one. There was no basis in fact for this - it was all about "values" and "traditions" and maintaining "a way of life that's important to people". It is also something most people would disavow today. You feel that allowing same-sex marriage sends the wrong message in schools, but kids in public schools aren't being taught that same-race marriage is better or worse than mixed-race marriage, and they're not going to be taught that homosexuality is good or bad - just that like race, it's not grounds for discrimination in the eyes of the law.

:You would also be hard-pressed to provide any objective proof that a same-sex couple would not raise a child as well as a mixed-gender couple. We would never expect the government to require single parents to immediately marry or to turn their kids over to be raised by couples for the well-being of the kids. Parenting is personal, and as long as there's no abuse or neglect it's not the government's place to tell anyone how to raise their kids. That standard carries over by extension to same-sex parenting. Frankly, it's a shame that there are kids living in orphanages instead of homes with parents because of adoption policies that prevent adoption by single-sex couples. Are the kids really better off being raised by an institution?

:What I'd like to know then, is this. On the streets and in the courts and in the classrooms, it doesn't matter who's married or single, or what their religion is. Why would it cause anyone material harm if some people are married to the same gender, when it doesn't cause harm based on whether they were married in a church or not, or to the same race? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:58, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

No, you haven’t. There have been repeated attempts to refute why those groups can’t marry. But that’s not the point. The point I’m raising is that your standard is problematic. Love isn’t enough. If it is, then anyone can marry as long as they love each other. Neither is love and consent, because that doesn’t deal with polygamy, etc. I’m not asking you to refute these other groups. I’m asking for a better standard.

Well proof is different than persuasion. I might be able to prove a point, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll convince you. It lowers societies standards in regards to marriage because society has for a long time said “one man, one woman.” Now we’re trying to lower that bar. (That effectively proves the point in and of itself because we are indeed lowering the standard.) But, to go further, it effectively makes it easier to lower the standard in the future. If the definition for marriage can just be tweaked a little bit, just pushed a little farther, then the next thing in line is permissible. Then the next, and so on.

You keep playing the race card. But the way blacks were treated is much different that they way the gays are treated. Blacks were slaves, weren’t allowed to vote, were forced to use separate facilities, etc. That’s not what’s happening to gays. They aren’t being enslaved or having their freedoms taken away. Quite frankly, it’s an outlandish and offensive example.

Kids in schools aren’t being taught that same-race marriages are good or bad. But that’s because no one talks about same-race marriages. Why? Because it’s irrelevant. Race has no bearing on marriage. Gender, however, does. What sex the people are does matter. And that is being brought up, and they are being taught that it’s okay. When schools are told to report if there are any kids who “speak out” against homosexuality, then that’s a negative influence. “Speak out” could include someone saying it’s wrong. Pretty soon, it becomes impossible to even object to it. That’s teaching them it’s okay by silencing the opposition.

I can easily demonstrate that same-sex couples aren’t as effective as heterosexual couples. Where do kids primarily learn things such as what’s okay and what’s not, how to treat each other, etc.? From their families. They see what goes on at home and that is their primary example to model. Boys need their fathers to see what men act like, girls need their mothers to see how women act. And both need to see the opposite sex to see how it’s proper to treat the other. (Are they respectful to one another, etc.) But with same-sex couples, you run into a road block: There inherently won’t be only a mother and a father. Granted, one could say what about divorced families or single parents. But kids who grow up in divorced homes still have a mom and dad. They may not live together, but they still have them. And single parents still do as well, assuming that one hasn’t died. But in that case do you take the kids away because a parent died? Of course not. With mom-dad couples, you might run into instances where the kid doesn’t have a mom or dad. But with same-decouples you will never have both a mom and a dad because you can’t be definition.

There needs to be more adoption certainly, and less premarital sex that brings kids into unwanted families, certainly. But that doesn’t mean that we let homosexual couples adopt to remedy that. That just creates more problems.

I’m not sure I fully understand the last question. Race, as I’ve already said, is irrelevant to marriage. It has no bearing. Same goes for religion. They simply have no bearing on marriage, and it’s a category mistake to put them into the same category as gender. Gender and sexual orientation have to have an impact by definition. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:45, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, because even if you disagree with the principle of what Homosexual people do (I perosnally have no problem with it), it makes no dfference to YOU if they can or cannot. How does it affect YOU if the person someone loves wants to legally leave their possessions behind once they die? Wants it to be officially known that they want to spend the rest of their life with the person they love? You can disagree with it via what you read in the Bible, but there are laws in place that contradict the Bible's message, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:SIMONR2|SIMONR2]]

Here are my questions that no one has yet been able to answer: In what way does homosexuality threaten "straight" marriage? Something I'm not sure if you're aware of: Making same-sex marriage legal doesn't make it mandatory. As to the arguments about it being a behavioral issue, so what if it is? It's attraction. That means it's wrong? You're saying anything we do because we choose to should be illegal? As to gay marriage being against the Bible, so is shaving your face, eating shellfish, and wearing poly-cotton blends. Oh, and you know, stoning people to death for disobeying God's will. Let's reinstate THOSE things, shall we? The fact of the matter is, Congress cannot make laws because God says so, because we do not live in a theocracy. For that same reason, Congress cannot mandate churches to perform same-sex marriages. Now explain to me where you (as in, the collective of heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage) are hurt by this? You say it is your moral decision; and yet, are you not infringing upon my morals with what I view as discrimination? As long as we're following that train of logic. My problem is, this is a "values voting" issue, and that entire concept is wrong to me--values are something you develop through life based on experiences. Values are not something you vote on. I don't think this should even be an issue--as long as it's not hurting anybody, let people make their own moral decisions, and that means, yes, legalizing something because it's behavioral and people want to do it. Because you don't have the right to tell them whether what they do, when it isn't hurting anyone else, is immoral.[[User:KatieCol|KatieCol]] 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

::Now we're getting somewhere! Could someone for the Anti-LGBT Marriage side kindly clarify as to why LGBT marriage is "immoral" or "damaging to society"? Please don't bombard me with "It's God's will" and other crap because being a human, you do '''NOT''' know the will of God.--[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 12:53, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::That's a sort of silly argument - the notion that because we are not divine we know nothing of the divine. I think the Bible is pretty articulate of the will of God.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:57, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

:::It's rather simple, actually. If you allow gay marriage, then what reason is there not to allow any other type of marriage? Now, you probably will simply dismiss the question as a "slippery slope" argument and never, ever provide a serious answer. It's okay. It won't be the first time I've run into gay marriage advocates who refuse to answer that question, but it is an important question to answer. In fact, I suspect you already know the answer to the question, just as everyone who opposes gay marriage does. You just refuse to answer it because it would embarrass you and undermine your position. The fact is that if you allow gay marriage, there is absolutely no reason to bar any other type of marriage no matter how extreme. Bigamy and polygamy will be first, of course. (In fact, the Netherlands has already started down that road after legalizing gay marriage.[http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301]) Then you will move into "unthinkable" territory: people with animals (which people have already tried[http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/01/1136050339590.html]), adults with kids (as is commonplace in Middle Eastern and Eastern societies), etc. But don't worry. I'm sure you can work out deciphering God's will when you meet Him face-to-face and impotently try to explain yourself. [[User:Jinxmchue|euHcM xniJ]] 13:49, 3 June 2010 (EDT)

::Iduan, you're citing a religious scripture to support a discriminatory law (Which is expressly forbidden by the 1st amendment in the Bill of Rights) that has been translated and reinterpreted thousands upon thousands of times in human history, putting into question whether today's Bible differs from that of the one from the Biblical times. As for Jinx's retort, clarification is appreciated on the magical connection between homosexuality and polygamy/bestiality/etc. --[[User:TomRobinson|TomRobinson]] 13:41, 7 June 2010 (EDT)

==No==
It's said that it is discrimination to be against homosexual marriage. But, whether you agree with it or not, you have to look at things from the Christian perspective to see where we are coming from. As a Christian, I see the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin, therefore I am against it. It's not about prejudice. It's just the fact I have a moral obligation to stand against anything that is wrong. I am against homosexuality in the same sense that I am against stealing. I consider them both to be wrong. Would someone say that I'm discriminating against thieves when I say that's wrong? Of course not. I don't think that homosexuals should be treated badly, or made fun of, but it is wrong and Christians have to say so.
: I do agree that Christians should say it's wrong if that is what they believe in. But I do believe that not allowing them to marry is unconstitutional, because of the first amendment that states "no law should be made enforcing or discriminating religion" (I'm paraphrasing here.) and if a law were to be passed, it would be enforcing a religious value on people that may not believe in what the people that put that action into law believe. But, even though I think gay marriage is OK, I also support peoples right to say its wrong, start up "rehab" for gay people (If the homosexual chooses to go there and its not tax-funded), and tell the world what they think about the issue. As long as the wall of separation between church and state is intact, and that homosexuals are not verbally or physically harassed, I believe it is OK for Christians (and any other religion) to say its wrong and not like it. --[[User:ITSAMEMARIO|ITSAMEMARIO]] 18:47, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

The first amendment deals with not being able to keep some one from practicing a particular religion, or force to them to practice it. Homosexuality is not a religion. And although it is opposed on religious grounds, there are also cultural and sociological factors involved, so it really doesn't fit into what the first amendment outlines. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is it that you consider it a moral obligation to believe the part of the Bible that says that homosexuality is a sin when other parts of the Bible are discarded as culturally antiquated or irrelevant to a given sect (i.e. the eating of shellfish, the call to embrace revenge over forgiveness in the Old Testament)? The Bible is not a single document, but a compilation of a number of different sources with diverse perspectives and (at times) contradictory values.
--[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 19:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

With all due respect, you don't know what I believe, so you can't really make a claim that I only believe part of the Bible and not another. Now, nothing is ever "disregarded" when you consider culture, etc. It is simply looking at things in their proper context. But, what you gave as examples don't fit the culture aspect.

The Old Testament law is split up into three basic categories: the priestly laws, the civil laws, and the moral laws. The priestly laws are no longer applicable today because they were fulfilled by Christ. (Ex: The Old Testament required animal sacrifice for the remission of sins, but in the New Testament Christ is sacrificed once for all sins.) The civil laws are also not applicable because they were in place in the Old Testament in a Theocratic system. Obviously, we live a democracy, not a theocracy, so the same laws don't apply. (I would also point out that as Christians we are no longer under the law, according to Romans 6:14-15.) The moral laws, however, are still in effect because they reflect the nature and character of God. (Ex: Lying is wrong because God can't lie.) So because God's character never changes, neither do the moral laws.

Plus, in the New Testament we don't see the civil or priestly laws reestablished, but we do see the moral law reestablished. That is why the New Testament still calls homosexuality wrong, but not with the associated death penalty.

And the Bible does not present contradictory values. Maybe things that are difficult, but not contradictory. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:01, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

Gay marriage doesn't exist. The term is an inherent oxymoron. Marriage by definition is the union of one man and one woman, This is God's definition is will always be the true definition. A lie told a million times is still a lie--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 23:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==It Depends==
*If the marriage is going to be carried out as a religious service, it should be up to the relevant religious authorities. If the marriage is nonreligious (carried out by a justice of the peace, or Elvis, for example), then it should be allowed. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 18:38, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

But a religious group can't refuse to follow the law. So if homosexual marriage is legal, they would be forced to adhere to that law, regardless of what they believe. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not the intent of homosexual marriage advocated, myself included. I fully recognize any religion's right to refuse to marry homosexuals. Marriage in the religious sense should be left up to each religion. If the Catholic church wishes not to recognize gay marrriage, that is 100% their prerogative. What I am advocating, however, is legal gay marriage. In that a gay couple can obtain a marriage license via the same requirements that heterosexual couple can. No church would be forced to perform a ceremony, and they would not be forced to recognize the marriage as marriage licenses offer legal, not religious benefits. Only churches that desire to perform gay ceremonies would. The gay marriage issue is about LEGAL rights and LEGAL recognition by the government, not RELIGIOUS recognition by any church or organization. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but it is about religion. Right now it's being pushed for homosexuality to be added to the list of hate crime victims. This means that if Christians don't like it and speak out against it, and then someone who overheard it went out and beat up a homosexual (I'm certainly not advocating that) , then the church that originally spoke out could be sued or shut down for promoting 'hate speech'. Similarly, if homosexuality was legalized, and a church refused to perform a ceremony for two homosexuals, then that could be labeled as discrimination and that church would suffer consequences. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 20:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

So as I can tell, you fear that if gay marriage was legalized and if gays were added to hate crime lists, then churches would face discrimination? May I ask why it is okay that gays are discriminated against, but not churches. As to the specific cases you mentioned. In this country, we thankfully still have (more or less) have first amendment rights. Nazi groups, white supremacy (and I am not comparing the church to these groups, just using them as examples) still can exist, as they should be able to, as long as they don't actively advocate violence against Jews, African Americans, whoever. Much like any group (be it Nazis, gay rights advocates, or anyone else) churches could continue to speak as they will as long as they don't advocate direct violence. As to the marriage aspect of it, as long as the law clearly states that no religious organization can be forced to marry any two individuals, then there is no basis for legal discrimination. Socially, people who think that the church discriminate will continue to do the same, and those that don't won't. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:51, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I do fear that Christians will face discrimination. I think hate crimes are stupid (not to debate that; it's a different topic) because they deal will motivation and intent. If I as a Christian exercise my Constitutional right to free speech and say I think something is wrong, then I can risk punishment. I know you might advocate that churches should be able to still voice opinions, but not everyone thinks that way. And yes, discrimination against homosexuals is wrong, too. But the marriage thing is not discrimination, because everyone has the same rights. Giving homosexuals the right to marry based off of their sexual preference, which is a behavior, would be discrimination. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:03, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Just because not everyone believes that churches should be able to voice anti-homosexuality opinions does not mean they won't be allowed to. As before mentioned, other groups face much more dissent than the Catholic Church, but they are allowed to voice their opinions under 1st amendment protection. As to the marriage aspect once again. I wouldn't call gay marriage discrimination but I understand your point. However, history has shown that specific legislature is often needed to protect the rights of minorities. We have specific laws regarding women (although no equal rights amendment amazingly) that protect them and give them specific protections (not rights, just protections) under the law. The same is true for African Americans, and other minorities. Minorities often need to be recognized legally to ensure the mantainence of their rights. And to use a very popular argument on this site, if gay marriage were to be passed, then heterosexuals would have the same rights to marry someone of their sex. That may seem odd to you, but the argument that we gays have equal rights in that we can marry members of the other sex is equally odd.[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 21:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Your right in that just because some don't want Christians to be able to speak out against homosexuals doesn't mean it will happen. But there are signs that we, in reference to us Christians, are going to be in trouble. I've heard there's a law out here in California that if a homosexual feels he or she has been discriminated against, then they can file a law suit and the state will pay all their legal fees. The defendant, on the other hand, would have to pay their own way. This has scary implications, because a homosexual could file a law suit and be backed up by the state, which has in all practical terms unlimited resources, while a church would have to pay for itself when most churches are struggling financially anyways. And I know that the homosexual movement is sometimes compared to the black or women's movement, but it's not the same. Blacks were fighting against slavery, which was clearly wrong, as well as Jim Crows laws sending to the back of the bus, etc. And women for a long time couldn't even vote. But homosexuals aren't facing that. No serious person is saying that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to vote or should have to use separate facilities. It is simply in regards to marriage and sexual preference, which is a behavioral issue. And you could say that allowing homosexuality would still give everyone the same rights, but I could say that if murderers wanted to legally murder and a law was passed to allow it, then would it be okay because "you can now legally murder too?" (I'm not equating murderers and homosexuals, just using that as a rather extreme example to prove a point.) [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 21:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

To identify the issue with the whole California thing. This type of extreme legislature (which I am against by the way. If the state is paying for one side, it should pay for the other as well) is often suggested, and even if passed, quickly altered. For example, under LBJ's presidency, federal funds were given to schools to allow busing for inner-city schools to outer-city schools to try and reduce de facto segregation (I am using the Civil Rights movement because it is a good historical precedence. You say that the gay rights movement cannot be compared to the African American or Women's movements. Its specifics and severity is certainly different, however, the theory and ideology behind it is not). This law was overturned rather quickly. We find that this country operates in knee-jerk reactions and extremes. Yes there may be some extreme legislature at the very beginning, but such legislature rarely lasts. Time ultimately smooths out the extremes in social policy.

As to the murder idea, that is different in that murder (or other such crimes such as rape, assault etc) physically harm other people. I can hardly see an argument that gay marriage somehow directly, physically harms people.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I wasn't trying to say that homosexual marriage physically harms people like murder does. Like I said, I wasn't trying to equate the two. The point was that you had mentioned if homosexuality was made legal, then everyone would still have the same rights because heterosexuals would have that right by extension. So I was just saying that is if murder was hypothetically made legal, then everyone still has the same rights because even non-murderers would be able to legal murder. My point is that, yes, the rights would still be the same, but that doesn't make murder right, and, similarly, homosexual marriage being passed doesn't make it right or beneficial to society. And the ideology of the black movement compared to the homosexual movement isn't quite the same. Blacks were being picked on because of racism and prejudice. When it comes to homosexuality, yes, there are some who are motivated by prejudice, but many such as myself come at it from a strictly moral stance. I'm against it because the Bible says it's wrong. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 22:17, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand that gay marriage is against your moral code, and I respect that, but what this country is based on is the allowance of multiple opinions to coexist in harmony. You don't have to recognize gay marriage, think it is right, think it is natural or any other such thing. It is you perogative to have any such views you desire on the subject. It is important to realize the difference between secular marriage (perhaps I should use the word union?) and religious marriage. The Bible indeed dictates religious marriage for christianity, but it does not dictate secular marriage. The Bible also says (correct me if I am wrong, I am not very versed in the Bible. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically) that atheism is a sin, as is sex before marriage? Yet you do not oppose the secular marriage of two atheists, or two non-virgins. Now to clarify my stance, I do not believe the Bible should have any authority in dictating governmental and legal marriage. In this socio-political climate, however, I must be pragmatic. Now my question is, why is it that homosexuality is cornered out as massively sinful and thus not eligible for marriage, when atheists and non-virgins are? By the way, I would like to thank you for being logical and rational in this debate. Both sides are much to prone to sensationalism; rational debate seems to be less and less common these days. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 22:56, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

As a Christian, I hold the Bible in the utmost regard. I consider it to be the holy word of God, infallible and inherent. But, this being said, I fully recognize that not everyone holds that same opinion. Your an Atheist, correct? I definitely don't expect you to hold the Bible in any special light, and that's fine. You're entitled to your own worldview. So I also wouldn't say that we should create any law "just because the Bible says so". I run my life, to the best of my ability, based on what the Bible says. But I don't want to force you to. I primarily oppose homosexuality because of Biblical reasons, but the reasons why I think homosexual marriage should not be legalized has to do with societal issues, such as I don't see it as being beneficial to society, etc. As for why Atheists can marry and non-virgins as well, it has to do with context. I wouldn't oppose two heterosexual Atheists marrying because heterosexual marriage is good, regardless of whether the participants are Christians, Atheists, or whatever. And for non-virgins, yes, it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. But there is nothing in the Bible that says that someone who has committed that sin couldn't later get married, so I see no reason to be against it. (Besides, the Jesus said that to lust after a woman in your heart is to commit adultery of the heart, so even if someone hasn't committed the physical act, everyone is guilty of lust.) And once they marry, then they're no longer committing the sin of sex outside of marriage, so it's better in that sense. So it’s about context. With homosexual marriage, homosexuality is the problem. Even if both homosexuals claimed to be Christian I would still be against it because homosexuality is the sin. And yes, thank you for being very logical and friendly. I often hear a lot of insults, (and they come from both sides), so thanks for being polite. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:16, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

My question is this. I see some benefits to society to allow gay marriage, and I see no societal harms. Benefits include financial and legal aid which can be helpful for the raising of a child. One of the societal arguments I hear most often is that gay marriages cannot produce children (I would like to point out that neither can marriages in which the couple is sterile, or simply choose not to). Gay couples can adopt one or more of the hundreds of thousands of parentless children in the country and world as a whole. The idea that marriage is simply for procreation seems ludicrous to me, coupled with the fact that we currently face overpopulation, it seems as if the human race can surely survive. I am not quite sure what societal issues you are referring to when you say they oppose gay marriage. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 23:29, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Well first off I think that we can both agree that the male and female is the natural option. Obviously they're bodies are designed to fit together. And yes, there is overpopulation. (One of the reasons why I and other Christians would stress abstinence until marriage, for the sake of not bringing yet another unwanted child into the world.) And yes, a gay couple could try to raise the child, sure. But the question is: would a homosexual couple be as effective at raising a child as a heterosexual couple? And I think that the answer is no, they couldn't. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that homosexuals are incapable of raising kids, but rather that they would simply not be as good as a mom and a dad. Because no matter how feminine a man may get, he can't substitute for a mother. And no matter how masculine a woman gets, she will never be a true father. Men and women are different. One's not better than the other, but they do posses different qualities that when coupled together compliment each other nicely. They're like the two different pieces to a puzzle. They just fit together. So I would wonder if same-sex couples could adequately raise kids when they won't have the full range of characteristics that men and women together posses. And, considering how kids can get made fun of in school for practically anything, having homosexuals parents just adds one more thing to shoot at them. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:15, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:Please keep in mind that many gay couples who want to get married don't do so to have (or get) children, but instead to receive recognition of their love to each other. In some countries non married couples including homosexuals are able to adopt children, so banning homosexual marriages will not stop gays raising kids, this is an entirely different issue. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 01:22, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Granted. But I was addressing a previous point about how homosexual couple could adopt kids and help with overpopulation and I was simply comparing parenting ability. As for what other nations do, I can’t really comment on that. I don't have enough knowledge about how they go about things to say one thing or another, so I can really only talk about what happens in the United States. That's what I'm familiar with. But to address just homosexuality in general apart from kids? I understand that they want to show their love, but that's not enough. Love isn't all there is to it. Should kids be able to marry just because they love one another? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:28, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

As to the children aspect of this conversation. You say that a man can never replace a mother and a woman a father. Yet we have hundreds of thousands of single parent families. Single people are allowed to adopt children and/or have children. If it is acceptable for a child to have only one mother and no father, what is wrong with having two mothers? @StatsMsn, yes many gay couples just want recognition of their love. But so do hundreds of thousands of couples who marry and choose not to have children. If they are allowed to marry for recognition why not gays? Finally, regarding the child marriage. Please do not insult this hereto rational debate. We are speaking purely in the realm of acts and legal standing of legal and consensual adults.
[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 10:02, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Yes, they're are lots of single parents. Many come by in the case of one parent dying. In those cases, you can't really say much, because they tried to raise the kids with both parents, but one unfortunately passed on. You can't really take kids away from them. Some are single because of divorce. I am against divorce, but as I've said before on this post, there are times when divorce is necessary. Adulterous or abusive spouses, etc, so you can't make divorce illegal because it can be legitimately necessary. And, even if they divorce, the kid still has a mom and dad. They might not live together, but they still have them.

Now, to what I said about child marriage. Please do not take away the courteously that we have so far had towards one another. That was a perfectly rational point. Yes, child marriage is not legal, but neither is homosexual marriage. If we can only discuss what's legal, then we shouldn't be having this debate at all. My point was that love is not all you need. It is certainly the single biggest factor, but there are other things that matter, too. If love is the only thing, then why can't kids marry if they love one another? It's a somewhat extreme example, certainly, but it's intended to show that more than just love is required. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:13, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I am not saying love is all that is required in marriage, one large aspect of marriage is responsibility, commitment, and maturity. That is why children are not allowed to marry. The country has deemed that children, and rightly (there are a few outliers, and I would include myself in this group, that are more mature) that under the age of 18, children are not legal adults. Thus they cannot sign legal documents without a guardian as well, they cannot enter contracts without a guardian, they cannot be treated as adults. The question of gay marriage is not are gays mature enough to enter marriage, but do we/should we have the right to under the US constitution. The reason why kids cannot marry is one of maturity, the reason why gays cannot marry, well I don't quite know, but it is not of maturity. Also I would like to ask, though I do not concur with your argument, how is a heterosexual couple getting married "just for love" any less threatening to the concept of adolescent marriage than homosexual couples getting married. I understand you think that "it is a slippery slope" but just on pure theory, where does that discrepancy lie.
As per the child argument, you have neglected the demographic of single parents that adopted/gave birth to a child purely on their own. Some people simply never find their life partner, and choose to have children on their own anyway. That is legal, and as it should be. If a single person all on his or her lonesome can decide to adopt/have a child, why should a two people of the same sex not have the same right? The child will undoubtedly receive more attention that way (seeing as there are two parental figures, not one) as well as enjoy the benefits of having possibly two incomes, or one income and one staying at home etc. Children of single parents by choice grow up into model citizens and valuable members of society every day, as do the children of gay couples where it is legal. [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 13:36, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

I know your not saying that love is the only requirement, and I'm not trying to advocate child marriage. I know why kids can't marry, and I think that the reasons for that are good ones. It's just that one common argument that I hear is, "They love each other so they should marry." But, as we both agree, there are more factors. As far as do homosexuals have the right to marry under the Constitution, it isn't addressed or defined. As I said before, the reason for gay marriage to not be allowed (at least in my opinion) is an issue of morality and the potential benefit for society. I'm not sure I understand what your asking about heterosexuals couples marrying "just for love". Can you specify that a little more? I want to make sure I accurately understand you so I can properly respond. The slippery slope thing is that hypothetically you should line up all the various issues of marriage in order of least harmful to most harmful, (heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.). Now, we've had a standard in place (one man and one woman). So if you move the bar down to allow for homosexuals, then it will make it easier for society to accept the next thing in line. After all, homosexuality was seen as being really bad but now it's okay, so why not _______. (Fill in the blank with whatever might come next.)

The child that is born of just one parent, presumably the mother, still has a mom and dad. She's not the virgin Mary, so there had to be conception. Now did the father take off or the parents don't want to marry, etc. I guess there's lots of theoretical scenarios there, so I can't possibly address them all. But if the dad takes off you can't punish mom and the child for that. Or if she doesn't tell the father and has the baby n her own, again, you can't take away the child and punish the kid because of the mom. Again, a single parent is not the ideal way to raise kids, either. A mom and a dad together are. But you can't reasonably say, "Single parenthood isn't ideal but it's allowed, so homosexual marriage should be allowed." That's creating more un-ideal situations and doesn’t help. And I'm certainly not saying that kids raised by homosexuals will grow up to be dysfunctional. It's just not the best way to do it. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:07, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

==Civil partnerships rather than marriages==
I would suggest, to avoid the moral and religious issues associated with the term "marriage", that it should simply be removed from the whole question. Rather than talking about "gay marriage", there should be civil partnerships which are available to any two cohabiting consenting adults. This is the approach which has been taken in the UK, and which (as far as I know) some US states are considering.

People in a civil partnership will have the same legal rights as married people regarding inheritance, welfare, etc., but they won't be "married" as regards the religious sense of the term. Civil partnerships should also be available to people living together in a non-sexual sense, e.g. cohabiting siblings.

There is already a distinction between civil and religious marriage; for instance, if you are Roman Catholic, you may be legally divorced under the civil law but still married under Catholic canon law, unless you seek an annulment of your marriage from the Church. So churches and other religious organisations would ''not'' be required to recognise secular civil partnerships.

Thus homosexual couples can have the same legal/financial advantages as married couples, without redefining the concept of marriage or upsetting the many religions which disapprove of homosexual relations. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 12:51, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I understand what your saying, but that wouldn't work. (At least from my perspective.) That's still legalizing gay marriage and just simply calling it something else. It's not the word marriage that should be treasured, but the institution itself, regardless of what name it's under. Besides, everyone says that government doesn't have the right to enforce religious values on everyone else. But then government also doesn't have the right to enforce secular values on society. Legalizing gay marriage is the government putting a stamp of approval on marriage and saying that it is an acceptable alternative. But it's not. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I simply don't agree with it.

Besides, that doesn't address all of the other issues about child raising, etc. that were previously brought up. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:36, 5 May 2008 (EDT) 
 
Acceptible alternative to what? I think (and this is just me), if two people love each other, should they not have the right to be married and share that happyness in the greatest way. Besides, by doing this, it shows that two heterosexual people that hate each other have more of a right than two homosexuals that have a perfect right to get married. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

Marriage is not a government institution and marriage should not be corrupted by sexual perverts, yes I said it, sexual perversion: deviating from mainstream sexuality -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:44, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Every time a liberal talks to me I get more conservative -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:45, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:Debrah, no offense, but you kind of seem to be freking out. Let me just say, in defense to my liberal nature, that I am from Massachussets, the most liberal state in the country. Anywho, sexual perverts? Perverts, although I see what your saying, is very strong (then again, so was my comment on the front page). But, let's face it, does a homosexual have a choice in the matter? Before I would say that they are sexual perverts, lets take this into consideration, do you know any homosexuals and if so, have you asked them why they are homosexual? It seems to me that people don't listen to homosexuals enough and thereby try to make it seem that they are chosing it on their own free will. Am I saying they are not? No. What I am saying is that someone should at least find out. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

I know homosexuals, and my best friend Jessica used to be a lesbian but became straight -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:59, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

:How does one change? If one changes, would that not mean that she (and this is no offense to your friend) was bisexual? I mean, how is it possible for one to change the way that they love (and who they can love) in one thing. If she was, then does that not mean that she was part stright to begin with? This would not make her lesbien, but rather, bisexual. Again, this is all a spitball (I am going to ask a gay person I know tomarrow about this). --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

She experimented with women then she started becoming more interested in men as time went by and less interested in women, she isn't interested in women anymore, she just changed -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

For example, people can slowly become liberal, and eventually not be conservative anymore -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 20:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

That is not becoming "straight" that is just realizing your true sexuality. She had doubts, she experimented, and slowly realized her true sexuality as being heterosexual. That indeed does happen, as sexuality is a highly confusing and complicated concept within a person. Some people discover that though they had homosexual inklings, they are overall heterosexual. Others, however, discover that they are completely homosexual. Showing one example of someone discovering their sexuality isn't proof that conversion is possible. [[User: AndrasK|AndrasK]] 20:50, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Again, just because two people love each other, that's not enough. As I said earlier, should kids be able to marry if they love one another? I know it's an extreme example, but it illustrates that more than love is required. As far as whether or not homosexuals are born that way or not, well, that's debatable. From a Christian standpoint, I'd say that's somewhat legitimate. Everyone is born with things that tempt them to sin, but not everyone is tempted in the same way. Some people are naturally arrogant, some are very humble. Yet that arrogant person might be honest, while the humble man could have a problem with lying. It just depends. So homosexuals might be born that way in the sense that they are born with that natural temptation. Of course, that's no excuse to do it, since people are still not supposed to sin. (Obviously if you aren't a Christian, then you won't accept this basic premise. But I'm just illustrating this from a Christian perspective.) And there are cases where homosexuals who are adamant about their sexuality will be cured. It does happen. Whether or not you accept those results is a different matter, but there's no denying it happens. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:32, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:I understand that, and I am aware of the fact that conservative Christians believe homosexuality to be immoral, and that there is Biblical support for this standpoint. However, in modern society there is a distinction between law and morality; not everything which is immoral is necessarily illegal. The fact remains that (for better or worse) in modern society, homosexuality is a legal and accepted practice, and homosexual couples are legally entitled to live together without interference by the state. So why should the state not allow them the same practical legal rights as married couples?

:Our society tolerates practices which we do not necessarily condone. I respect your viewpoint that homosexuality is sinful, and this is a widely held viewpoint; but we don't live in a theocracy, and not all sins are crimes. I just don't understand the basis for your argument. If you are arguing that same-sex civil partnerships are a bad idea because the state should not approve or condone homosexuality, then why aren't you going the whole way and arguing for homosexuality to be made illegal? [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

I myself am Conservative for secular reasons, this country doesn't allow incestuous marriages, because they are immoral, the same should be true for homosexual marriage, I don't care if people love each other in a non-platonic manner, for example if a brother and a sister love each other in a non-platonic manner they shouldn't get marriage because it is sick, and the same goes for homosexual marriage -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:06, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Homosexuals are not born that way Columbia University did a study on twins and found out if one twin is gay the chance the other one is gay is 7% -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 12:09, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

No offense, but this why you shouldn't come into the debate in the middle of it. I already acknowledged earlier that just because the Bible says something is wrong that doesn't mean it should be illegal. I can't force moral principles onto you, and I don't want to. I'm against it from a legal standpoint because I don't think it's beneficial to society, I doubt that a homosexual couple would be as effective in raising kids as a heterosexual couple, etc. I've already outlined and given reasons for these arguments several times.

Now people do have the right to do what they want. If two homosexuals want to live together and have relationships, that's their business. I don't like it and I think it's wrong, but they have the freedom to do it. But they don't have the right to be legally married, for those earlier stated reasons and because the government doesn't have the authority to say "this is morally okay" and force it upon the rest of us. I'm not arguing for homosexuality to be illegal because, as you stated, we're not in a theocracy and I can't force that on you. But, in all fairness, homosexuality shouldn't be forced on me as an "acceptable alternative lifestyle" either. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:39, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, immediate siblings and immediate family marriages are not legal because they have huge genetic implications in terms of children. Marrying further family is still actually legal in this country (depending on the relation and how the genetics would work out) [[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 19:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

That's true. Inbreeding can lead to retardation and other problems. You don't want children coming out of those families when there's a really high statistical chance that they'll have genetic issues. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:41, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Exactly - that's why there is an objective, secular reason for incestuous relationships to be illegal. But there is no such reason for homosexual relationships. Some people believe them to be immoral, based on religious views; others don't.

:In response to what you (Ultimahero) said earlier, allowing homosexuals to have ''civil partnerships'' (not marriages) hardly "forc[es] homosexuality" on you as "an acceptable alternative lifestyle". It doesn't affect you at all. I can understand that you would object to a law which required religious groups to conduct same-sex marriages - and I would also strongly object to such a law. Religious groups have the right to define marriage however they wish according to their doctrines, and the government should not force anything on them. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a law which allows homosexual couples to have ''secular'' civil partnerships. So I don't see how it forces anything on you or anyone else. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 06:37, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Okay. I just said that the reason I'm against homosexuality from a legal standpoint is because of it's not beneficial to society, homosexual parents wouldn't be as effective as heterosexual one, etc. I'm not basing the legal factor on religious values. I'm primarily against it for religious reasons, but when it comes to the legal aspect I'm not.

A civil union is the same thing as a marriage with one key difference: you don't call it marriage. As I said earlier, it's not the word "marriage" that matters, but the institution itself, whatever you may call it. And it certainly does affect me. If it affects society, it affects me. When homosexuality is strongly being pushed to be added to the list of hate crime groups, meaning that if I say anything negative about homosexuality I could get fined or jailed for spreading "hate speech", that affects me. When the "homosexual struggle" is being taught in public schools, to children nonetheless, alongside blacks-Americans struggle against racism and women’s struggle for equality, as if those movements were the same thing (which they aren't, not even close) then yes, that affects me. When a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America can be sued and forced to include homosexual scout masters, then yes, that affects me. When homosexual parades come down the street and the cries are "We're here, we're queer, get used to it", then that affects me. If gay couples were off doing there own things and keeping to themselves, then it wouldn't be an issue. But they aren't. It's an in-your-face mentality. So, yea, it affects me. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 14:28, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:I completely agree that homosexuality should not be added to the list of hate crime groups (I believe in free speech, and that you should have the right to criticise homosexuality if you wish to), and that the Boy Scouts of America should not be forced to include homosexual scoutmasters if it doesn't want to. As a libertarian conservative, I believe in the right of private organisations to make their own inclusion choices based on their own moral beliefs. However, that has no bearing on whether same-sex civil unions should be allowed. It isn't the same issue, and introducing civil unions will not have any effect on any of the other issues which you highlighted.

:I also wasn't making any argument about homosexual parents. As it happens, I do think that some homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children (subject to careful vetting), but that isn't the issue here. Civil unions have nothing to do with the right to adopt children; it's a completely separate issue. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 15:15, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

The adoption of children is relevant in the sense that if civil unions are allowed, then it is a recognized family. I suppose it subjective to how you define it, but the gay couple in question would be legally recognized the same way that any heterosexual couple would be. So the issue of children being raised is an inevitable follow up.

Granted, civil unions aren't directly related to those other issues. But, this basically has the to do with the Domino Effect. First gay marriage isn’t even thinkable. Then civil union's are allowed, because that gives homosexuals some recognition, but it's not quite marriage. (I would still argue it is the same basic thing, but I digress.) But of course gay couples won't be happy with that. No, because we call it something else instead of marriage, then they'll feel like they're not really equal and will demand full-blown marriage. And since we've already conceded most of the basic rights of marriage to them anyways, why not just go the extra mile? But then when some Christian group in some church somewhere refuses to do a service for a homosexual couple based on moral principles, and they will be sued. After all, if homosexuals are added to the hate crime list (I know you personally said your against it, but still bear with me) then it's discrimination to treat them that way. You can’t talk badly about their sexual orientation or refuse them service of any kind because of it. The churches will either be forced to recognize them, or will be shut down, or the members fined or jailed. It's all one thing that leads to another. So, no, a civil union isn't directly causing those other issues, but they are all inherently linked. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 15:47, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:This is a slippery slope argument, which, formally speaking, is a logical fallacy. I do understand what you're saying, but I am arguing that we should allow civil unions and ''stop there''. As I said, I believe in the libertarian principles of free speech and association - thus you should be able to criticise homosexuality if you wish, and churches and other private organisations should not have to recognise same-sex marriage or perform other services for homosexuals if they don't wish to. This is why I'm against "hate speech laws" in general, and why I think anti-discrimination laws have gone too far. On the other hand, I firmly believe that the ''government'' (as opposed to private organisations) should be required to treat all people equally, homosexual or heterosexual. Thus, the government should recognise same-sex civil unions, but private organisations (including churches) should not be forced to. I don't accept your argument that recognising civil unions is going to lead to this massive landslide which will lead to churches being shut down and their members arrested; that isn't realistically going to happen (especially given that the "free exercise of religion" is explicitly protected by the US Constitution). [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 16:39, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Which logical fallacy applies here? I can't see how it is illogical. The example I gave is hypothetical, I acknowledge that. But it's a realistic possibility. I know that you might say stop at civil unions, but it won't end there. Even now, when civil unions aren't allowed, there's a push for gay marriage. Logically, if it's being pushed for now, without any precedent, then why should we assume that it will end if they do get civil unions? That's like saying we want X, but we'll stop once we get 90% of it. That doesn't make sense. If you can get 90%, why not go for the whole thing? It will lead to full marriage. And I understand that you don't want private organizations to be forced to accept homosexuality. But, we've already seen it happen. I gave the Boy Scouts as an example. Again, the precedent has been set that homosexuals can impose their will upon private organizations if they push hard enough. Why should I believe that they won't do it to churches? We're the biggest one opposing them. If they can shut us up then that just helps them. I know this is all just theory because we're talking about something that has yet to happen, but I see no logical reason to assume that it will stop at civil unions. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:18, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

And the Constitution gets reinterpreted all the time. All it takes is for a majority on the Supreme Court, which would currently be five people, to rule that the Constitution doesn't protect religion if they are "discriminating". [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:20, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Excellent point with the Supreme Court Ultimahero, it happens all the time with The Bill of Rights. Does anyone know what infringe means compared to gun control. The slippery slope arguement is very valid (gun control are examples). You are talking about changing laws to your liking and not the majority. I would like the "adult" age lowered to 12 (just to emphasis the point)so the children can legally give condent. Texas recently (within the last 10 years) raised the marriage age from 14 to 18 after the Mormon church moved in.So much for religious freedom since the marriages where already in place.
Just because you are an adult does not mean you can do anything you wish. 18 is the adult age but you still can not legally drink alcohol. There are other examples where adults can not do things until they are of appropiate age. Homosexual marriage does affect everyone. What legal statuses are you trying to obtain that doesn't affect the entire population and isn't already available elsewhere (other laws)?

* Civil partnerships should be independent of marriages - meaning that every marriage should be a civil partnership, but not every civil partnership should be a marriage. And civil partnerships shouldn't be restricted to couples; they should allow more than two, and even close relatives, to join. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 15:33, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Continuous function

2010-07-13T18:54:17Z

Sunda62: /* 1/x is continuous */ new section

I don't think the merger should happen. Continuity is first introduced in calculus, to be sure, but it's also the backbone of topology and needs to have a separate page to deal with these two degrees of usage. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:48, 5 December 2008 (EST)

== 1/x is continuous ==

The text is wrong. The function f(x) = 1/x, with the non-zero reals as domain, is a continuous function. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 14:54, 13 July 2010 (EDT)

Pelops

2010-07-13T18:51:28Z

Sunda62: Greek mythology is full of homosexuals...

'''Pelops''' was the son of [[Tantalus]] who was served to the gods at a feast. Fortunately, the gods realized what was happening before eating Pelops, and so were able to re-assemble him. Pelops later married [[Hippodamia]] after beating her father in a chariot race. He had two sons: [[Atreus]] and [[Thyestes]].

The boy Pelops was a lover of god [[Poseidon]]. Curiously, Pelops cursed [[Laios]] of Thebes when Laios abduced his own son [[Chrysippus]] as lover.

[[category:Greek Mythology]]

FIFA World Cup

2010-07-08T19:39:48Z

Sunda62: location

The '''FIFA World Cup''' is a global [[soccer|association football]] ([[soccer]]) tournament held every four years since 1930 (except during the Second World War). Its scale as a global sporting event is challenged only by the [[Olympics]].

In the current form, the final tournament is contested by 32 nations who, with the exception of the host nation, are required to qualify by beating others from their region in a preliminary tournament. The current holders of the World Cup are Italy, who beat France in the 2006 final in Germany. [[Brazil]] currently holds the record for most wins, with 5. The [[United States]] has never won the competition but reached third place in the first edition.

The [[2010 FIFA World Cup|2010 World Cup]] will be held in South Africa, the first time the tournament is hosted in Africa.

==Tournament Winners<ref>http://www.sportingchronicle.com/divisions/worldcupwinners.html</ref>==
{|style="background:none"

{|class="wikitable" valign="top"
|-
|Year
|Location
|Winner
|-
|1930
|[[Uruguay]]
|Uruguay
|-
|1934
|[[Italy]]
|Italy
|-
|1938
|[[France]]
|Italy
|-
|1942
|(No tournament)
|(No tournament)
|-
|1946
|(No tournament)
|(No tournament)
|-
|1950
|Brazil
|Uruguay
|-
|1954
|Swizerland
|[[West Germany]]
|-
|1958
|Sweden
|[[Brazil]]
|-
|1962
|Chile
|Brazil
|-
|1966
|[[England]]
|England
|-
|1970
|Mexico
|Brazil
|-
|1974
|[[West Germany]]
|West Germany
|-
|1978
|[[Argentina]]
|Argentina
|-
|1982
|Spain
|Italy
|-
|1986
|Mexico
|Argentina
|-
|1990
|Italy
|Germany
|-
|1994
|United States
|Brazil
|-
|1998
|[[France]]
|France
|-
|2002
|Japan and South Korea
|Brazil
|-
|2006
|Germany
|Italy
|-
|2010
|South Africa
|Spain or The Netherlands
|}
|
{|class="wikitable"
|-
!5
|[[Brazil]]||1958,1962,1970,1994,2002
|-
!4
|[[Italy]]||1934,1938,1982,2006
|-
!3
|[[Germany]]||1954,1974,1990<ref>Including two titles technically won by West Germany.</ref>
|-
!2
|[[Argentina]]||1978,1986
|-
!2
|[[Uruguay]]||1930,1950
|-
!1
|[[England]]||1966
|-
!1
|[[France]]||1998
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Soccer]]

Talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-07-06T20:43:24Z

Sunda62: /* Incorrect value of Pi */ new section

Portuguese language

2010-07-06T20:36:12Z

Sunda62: pt x es

'''Portuguese''', also ''português'' or ''língua portuguesa'', is a [[Romance language]] which origniated in [[Portugal]]. Like all Romance languages, Portugese originated from [[Latin]], and the first known use a distinct Portugese was around 900 AD. Portugese is widely spoken in [[Portugal]], [[Angola]], [[Mozambique]], [[Guinea-Bissau]], [[East Timor]], [[Equatorial Guinea]], [[Cape Verde]], and [[Brazil]]. It has about 230 million speakers worldwide, making it the seventh most widely spoken language in the world.<ref>[http://www.linguaportuguesa.ufrn.br/ A lingua portuguesa] (in Portuguese)</ref>

Portuguese is closely related to [[Spanish]]; it looks similar on the page but sounds very different. Portuguese has more vowel sounds than Spanish, in consequence Portuguese speakers can easily understand Spanish, but Spanish speakers usually have a hard time speaking or understanding Portuguese. There are also differences in [[vocabulary]] and [[pronunciation]] between European and South American Portuguese, much as there are between [[American English]] and [[British English]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Romance languages]]

Biblical scientific foreknowledge

2010-07-06T20:29:28Z

Sunda62: /* Cosmology */ Stellar proper movement (sorry, no sources, but it's in Job)

[[File:Newton.png|thumb|alt=scientific foreknowledge in the bible|250px|[[Isaac Newton]], cornerstone of the [[scientific revolution]], based his research on the scientific authority of the Bible and sought enlightenment in scripture.]]‎
'''Biblical scientific foreknowledge''' is the remarkable content of the [[Bible]] showing a comprehension of scientific knowledge beyond anything that existed among [[atheist]]ic sources at the time when the Bible was composed.

'''[[Atheist]]ic organizations and scientists, particularly [[evolution]]ists, engage in [[liberal denial]] about how the Bible was correct long before science could discover the same truths'''.

== Specific examples of foreknowledge ==

==Health and Biology==

===Bloodletting hastens death===
At the time of Jesus and for centuries afterward, arteries and veins were thought to be filled with air and blood was viewed as something to be used up rather than recirculate. Bloodletting -- the practice of intentionally draining blood from a patient -- was common medical practice through the time of George Washington, hastening his death prematurely for reasons not understood until years later.<ref>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/37212.php</ref>

Most victims of crucifixion in Roman times languished on the cross for days. But the Bible describes how Pilate, who crucified many, was surprised at how quickly Jesus passed away. 2000 years later, scientific knowledge has advanced to understand that this was caused by his prior loss of blood during his scourging (being brutally whipped), a punishment typically given instead of crucifixion.

===Homosexuality and disease===
The Bible's prohibition against [[homosexuality]] predated knowledge about the [[Homosexuality and Health|many diseases and disorders associated with homosexuality]], and thus showed scientific wisdom prescient for its time.

=== Eyesight ===

The description in the [[Mark 1-8 (Translated)|Gospel of Mark 8:24]] for the sensation when one's eyesight is restored includes his perception of "trees walking." This perception was first confirmed nearly 2000 years later as physicians developed medical techniques for restoring eyesight.

=== Maximum Human Height ===

Atheists thought the size of [[Goliath]] in the Bible to be absurdly large (over nine feet tall), until [[Robert Wadlow]] grew to nearly 9 feet tall and was still growing when he died at a young age in 1940.

=== Leprosy and Contagion ===

At the time of Jesus, leprosy was thought to be highly contagious. Jesus rejected that prevailing view and welcomed lepers. Not until the 20th century was it realized that leprosy is very rarely contagious.

==Cosmology==
===Spherical Earth===
The Book of Isaiah establishes that the true shape of the earth is a sphere:
{{cquote|It is He who sits above the circle of the earth... - Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)}}
Here, the translation "circle" is inapt, as the Hebrew term entailed something spherical, not flat.

Note that Isaiah was written circa the 8th century BC, centuries before Greek philosophers, beginning with [[Pythagoras]], theorized the earth was round.

=== Earth free floating in space ===
The book of Job states that God "hangs the earth on nothing." This presaged the fact that space is in fact empty, which wasn't known until the dawn of the 20th century, when ether theory was disproved. It also contrasts with pagan mythologies such as [[Atlas]] holding up the earth or the earth being supported by a giant turtle, as in ancient Hindu and native American myths.

=== Asteroids ===
The Revelation of Saint John notes,
{{cquote|And the second angel sounded, and as it were a great mountain burning with fire was cast into the sea: and the third part of the sea became blood; And the third part of the creatures which were in the sea, and had life, died; and the third part of the ships were destroyed. Revelation 8:8-9 (KJV)}}
This accurately describes asteroids, essentially large chunks of rock lit on fire by the shock of entering the earth's atmosphere. They were not discovered until 1801, and their composition was not otherwise known until the 20th century.

=== Stellar proper movement ===
In [[Job]], there is a list of challenges that are constructed in the form of questions, with the idea that man can't do it, but God can.

Among those challenges, two are remarkable: one mentions the ''untying'' of Orion's belt, and the other is the ''binding'' of the Pleiades. One recently astronomers could measure the proper movement of those stars; Orion's belt is moving apart, with each star going in a different direction, while the Pleiades are moving together.

== Meteorology ==
=== Existence of the [[Jet Stream]] ===
Ecclesiastes 1:6 notes, "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits." This described the jet stream long before its 19th-20th century discovery.

== Zoology ==

===Existence of dinosaurs===
[[Dinosaur]] fossils were not discovered until the 19th century, but the book of [[Job]] describes enormous creatures called behemoth and leviathan, the descriptions being similar to dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures. It may also have referred to another similarly giant now-extinct species.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp</ref>

===Lions' killing methods===

Until the 1970s naturalists believed that lions killed their prey by biting through the neck or by breaking the neck with a swat of a paw, while the Bible says that lions strangled their prey. (Nahum 2:12) It was not until the 1970s that it was discovered that the [[Bible]] was correct.

==Engineering examples==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge about these engineering developments has been proposed:<ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2191</ref>

{{cquote|automobiles (Joel 2:3-4); airplanes (Isaiah 31:5, also 40:31); submarines (Revelation 9:1-11); radio (Ecclesiastes 10:20); and television (Revelation 11:3-12)}}

== Alleged absurdities and contradictions ==

Biblical scientific foreknowledge is an underpinning of creation science, and is widely credited by Christian scientists and apologists, including the organizations [[Creation Ministries International]], [[Answers in Genesis]], and [[CreationWiki]].<ref>http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge.</ref><ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1718/</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

Atheists unsuccessfully attempt to discredit the Bible based on science. Here are some examples:

=== Bat as a bird ===
A favorite evolutionist canard is that Leviticus 11:13-19 labels the [[bat]], a [[mammal]], as a [[bird]]. But this is an obvious failure of translation, as the Hebrew term '' 'owph'' did not entail the "clade" of birds, but was a non-biological category referring to any winged creature, mammalian, avian, or insect. The KJV translation as "fowl" is simply incorrect.

=== Incorrect value of Pi ===
Two sections of the bible (1 Kings 7, 23-26, 2 Chronicles, 4, 2-5) appear to indicate that the correct value of [[Pi]] is 3, whereas Pi is in fact an irrational number, equalling approximately 3.14159. It has alleged by atheists, including [[Sam Harris]] and [[Richard Dawkins]], that this value indicates the fallacious nature of scripture.<ref>The Richard Dawkins Foundation, ''Reply to a Christian'', Sam Harris - [http://richarddawkins.net/articles/139]</ref> However, a simple explanation of the claimed "contradiction" is that the Bible records the ratio of the actual object which Hiram created, not that of a mathematical [[sphere]]. The claim that it was round all about does not equate to a claim that it was a perfect sphere, as atheists have claimed.<ref>''Theology'', Volume 59, Issues 427-438, Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (Great Britain), London, 1956, p. 23 </ref>

Moreover, [[Pi]], when expressed as one significant digit, is equal to 3.

==See Also==
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[Creation vs. Evolution Videos]]
*[[The Bible]]
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Atheism]]

{{Template:Creation vs. evolution}}

==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible scientific foreknowledge] by [[CreationWiki]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Creationism]]

Spanish language

2010-07-02T17:05:39Z

Sunda62: /* Distribution */ Latin America, usually, does not include Suriname, Guyana, etc; in fact, Latin America is usually _defined_ as Spanish or Portuguese speaking America.

The '''Spanish language''' is a member of the [[Romance language]] family, the group of languages descending from [[Vulgar Latin]], the dialect spoken by the soldiers and provincial officials of the [[Roman Empire]]. Originally spoken in the northern regions of what is now [[Spain]], Spanish also draws some influence from the regional languages of its area. Spanish also draws heavy influence from [[Arabic]], due to the [[Moorish]] [[Umayyad|occupation]] of Spain lasting from 711 to 1492.

Today, the majority of its speakers live outside of Spain, with large numbers in [[Central America|Central]] and [[South America]]. It is one of the most-spoken languages in the [[world]]. It is spoken as a first language by about 350,000,000 people, or by 417,000,000 if non-native speakers are included. The Spanish language is the second-most common language in the [[United States]], as well as the second-most natively spoken language in the world, after [[Mandarin Chinese]].

It is more difficult for native Spanish speakers to learn [[English]] than it is for native English speakers to learn Spanish{{fact}}, due to the complexity and inconsistency of English [[grammar]] and pronunciation compared to Spanish.

The Spanish is being contaminated by many words loaned from the English, but there usually are many good Spanish words which the people can use instead of them.

==Distribution==
*[[Spain]]
*Former Spanish colonies in the [[Caribbean]] - ([[Dominican Republic]], [[Puerto Rico]], [[Cuba]])
*[[South America]] and continental [[Central America]] (with the exceptions of [[Portuguese]]-speaking [[Brazil]], [[French]]-speaking [[French Guiana]], [[Dutch language|Dutch]]-speaking [[Suriname]], and English-speaking [[Guyana]] and [[Belize]])
*[[Hispanic]] populations in the [[United States]]
*former Spanish colonies in [[Africa]], eg Equatorial Guinea
*a distinct dialect is spoken in the [[Philippines]]

[[Category:Romance languages]]

User talk:Sunda62

2010-07-02T12:51:36Z

Sunda62: /* Redirect */

I have just noticed your, um, Portugisation (sorry) of the Dias article. Thanks.

I haven't a clue how to to do that, yet in the last few days my edits have been sprouting Iberian names like weeds. And I'll probably be doing more shortly. (Finish the Portuguese push into the Indian Ocean, then de Quiros, Torres etc.) If you do have time it would be great...if not thanks for Dias anyway. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 15:08, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Thanks.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:43, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

Please improve the quality of your edits or please move on to a different site. I had to revert your last edit concerning [[Fidel Castro]]. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:23, 5 March 2010 (EST)
* The article says that Castro died in 2009, and then says he was seen alive with Lula in 2010. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 08:56, 7 March 2010 (EST)

== Redirect ==

Is there some compelling reason you redirected? We prefer to move articles instead of redirecting them, as it keeps the edit history intact. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 08:47, 30 June 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks for your response! <s>I will remove the re-direct and simply move the article</s>. Ahh, I see...you created the redirect page, didn't move the content.....never mind! Here we prefer editors don't "ping-pong" answers so as to keep the conversation in one place. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:33, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
:: ''Here we prefer editor don't ping-pong answers'' - me too, but that horrible ping-pong seems to be the standard in most wikis. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 08:51, 2 July 2010 (EDT)

Schrödinger's equation

2010-06-30T12:44:08Z

Sunda62: Redirected page to Schrodinger equation

#REDIRECT [[Schrodinger equation]]

Eigenvectors and Eigenvalues

2010-06-30T12:43:21Z

Sunda62: in Physics (unsourced, but I'm too lazy today - World Cup, etc)

In [[linear algebra]], when a transformation of a space is carried out, some vectors (points in the space) are not rotated, but only extended or shrunk (moved farther or closer to the origin). The vectors are called the '''eigenvectors''' of the transformation, and the amount of extension or shrinkage carried out on that eigenvector is called the '''eigenvalue''' of the transformation corresponding to the given eigenvector.

==Characteristic Property of Eigenvalues and Eigenvectors==

An '''eigenvalue''' of a square n × n [[matrix]] with real entries <math>A</math> is a scalar <math>\lambda \in \mathbb{R}</math> such that

:<math>A\boldsymbol{x}=\lambda\boldsymbol{x}</math>

for some non-zero vector <math>\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathbb{R}^n</math> known as a [[eigenvector]]. The eigenvalues are the zeroes of a matrix's [[characteristic polynomial]], the degree of the corresponding root is called the '''algebraic multiplicity''' of the eigenvalue.

The same definition is valid for n × n matrices over any [[field]] '''F''': Then <math>\lambda \in \mathbf{F}</math> and <math>\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathbf{F}^n</math>.

The eigenvectors represent directions that are preserved by linear transformations of a [[vector space]].

All the eigenvectors of a particular eigenvalue [[span]] a vector space called the [[eigenspace]].

If the characteristic polynomial splits into linear factors, then he product of all the eigenvalues of a matrix counted with their algebraic multiplicities equals the value of the matrix's determinant. Since a matrix is invertible if and only if the determinant is non-zero, it is invertible if and only if zero is not an eigenvalue.

The [[span]] of all the eigenvectors corresponding to a fixed eigenvalue <math>\lambda</math> is called the [[eigenspace]] <math>E_\lambda</math> of <math>A</math>. The dimension of this space is called the '''geometric multiplicity''' of the eigenvalue.

== Eigenvectors and Eigenvalues in Physics ==
In Physics, eigenvectors and eigenvalues play an important role. For example, solving [[Schrödinger's equation]] (one of the fundamental equations of [[Quantum mechanics]]) is a problem of finding Eingenvectors and Eigenvalues for a very complex linear operator. The ''quantization'' (which means that discrete values are acceptable in physics, but not discrete; for example, an electron can have spin 1/2 or -1/2, but never 1/3 or 1/10) that was previously a postulated of Quantum mechanics can be derived from the fact that the eigenvalues of the operators come in discrete sets.

[[category:Linear algebra]]