Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

J. Edgar Hoover

2007-09-13T01:08:41Z

Tehstone: /* References */

'''John Edgar Hoover''' (1895-1972) was a controversial director of the [[FBI]]. Hoover as FBI Director was a staunch opponent of [[Communism]], [[liberalism]], [[organized labor]], and [[homosexuals]]. Hoover served as director for 48 years until his death. He founded the FBI's 'public enemies' program, under which such criminals as [[John Dillinger]], [[Bonnie Parker]] and [[Clyde Barrow]] were successfully caught. He enforced [[prohibition]] when it was in effect.

==Controversy==
Hoover was not opposed to the use of illegal methods in collecting evidence against suspects using such tactics as burglary and illegal wire tapping. Additionally, his investigations were often focused on individuals with differing political or social ideals rather than suspected criminals. Most notable were his attempts to block voter education drives and boycotts organized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

==References==
<references/>
Wilson, Gahan, ''The Big Book of Weirdos'', Paradox Press, New York, 1995
<sp>
Garrow, David J, "The FBI and Martin Luther King", theatlantic.com,

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoover, J. Edgar}}
[[category:Biographies]]

J. Edgar Hoover

2007-09-13T01:08:25Z

Tehstone:

'''John Edgar Hoover''' (1895-1972) was a controversial director of the [[FBI]]. Hoover as FBI Director was a staunch opponent of [[Communism]], [[liberalism]], [[organized labor]], and [[homosexuals]]. Hoover served as director for 48 years until his death. He founded the FBI's 'public enemies' program, under which such criminals as [[John Dillinger]], [[Bonnie Parker]] and [[Clyde Barrow]] were successfully caught. He enforced [[prohibition]] when it was in effect.

==Controversy==
Hoover was not opposed to the use of illegal methods in collecting evidence against suspects using such tactics as burglary and illegal wire tapping. Additionally, his investigations were often focused on individuals with differing political or social ideals rather than suspected criminals. Most notable were his attempts to block voter education drives and boycotts organized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

==References==
<references/>
Wilson, Gahan, ''The Big Book of Weirdos'', Paradox Press, New York, 1995
Garrow, David J, "The FBI and Martin Luther King", theatlantic.com,

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoover, J. Edgar}}
[[category:Biographies]]

Debate:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?

2007-09-13T00:14:15Z

Tehstone: /* YES/NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

Do you mean the countless millions of dead ones or the handful who survived and were put into the "ghettos" we like to call "reservations?"--[[User:Eastfernstreet|Eastfernstreet]] 15:05, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

The European colonists brought Christianity to the Americas and ended the Central American practice of [[human sacrifice]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:I wonder how many people were killed to achieve this (latter) laudable aim? [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:32, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

They sensibly replaced it with the human sacrifice to the concept of justice (capital punishment). The improvement here is that efforts are often made to avoid sacrificing innocent individuals. Thus the blood-lust of the population could be nurtured without arbitary victimisation of innocents. [[User:Auld Nick|Auld Nick]] 05:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
: North American Indians did not practice human sacrifice. [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it was definitely good for the natives. Look at how they lived before Europeans came to America. They lived in tepees and were practically naked all the time. Wouldn't you want help if you were in that situation? Thanks to our colonial ancestors, native people now have a much higher quality of life due to casinos, yet are still able to maintain some of their old ways on their reservations. It is the duty of civilized peoples to raise their inferiors up from savagery. Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden" comes to mind:

:Take up the White Man’s burden—
:Send forth the best ye breed—
:Go bind your sons to exile
:To serve your captives’ need;
:To wait in heavy harness,
:On fluttered folk and wild—
:Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
:Half-devil and half-child.

--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:12, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::I sincerly hope that the above opinion is not serious, and if it is, that it is not the opinion of the majority of contributors on this site. What a shame.[[User:Jnl001|Jnl001]] 19:49, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm hopeing this is a Devils advocate posting or one based on sheerignorance of history and contemporary life in Indian Country, because it is one of the most racist, bigotted things I've read in a long time. Maybe this is what the next round of media articles about Conservapedia will focus on. I can see the headlies now. "New Wiki becomes bastion of skinheads and American Nazis"--[[User:Third Day|Third Day]] 09:58, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see how one could argue otherwise. The Europeans taught the Indians that it was wrong to kill each other in the name of their false gods, and taught them Christianity. It is unfortunate that many were killed by diseases, but at least their souls were saved. And I agree with Conservateur's point that the whites improved their living conditions immensely. [[User:JBT|JBT]] 02:36, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

It's good thing we killed them in the name of our own god instead of letting them kill each other int he name of their false gods. And you're right...we did improve their living conditions immensely, for both of them that were left anyway.

^
I FIND YOU INTOLERANT AND HATE YOU FOR IT

::JBT, who are you to say whose gods are false and whose gods are true? If people who follow different gods, and people who disbelieve in all gods would just agree to disagree then we'd all be a lot happier! --[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 10:16, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Am I allowed to argue on both sides? I don't think this is a black and white issue.

If the reports of "smallpox blankets" and Caribbean slavery are true, then Columbus took advantage of several thousand native Americans. Also, I've heard that the native population was reduced 90% by European colonists - presumably through conquest and starvation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 05:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure what the point of this debate is, the question seems bit of a Trojan Horse, but I would imagine that those who survived would say no. Bringing disease, alcohol and superior firepower to wipe many of them out, then settling their land out can hardly be a good thing from their point of view. Hopefully a few of them will respond here. Of course from the colonists' point of view everything has turned out pretty good. Also European colonization of the Americas covers a very wide range of incomers and indigenous peoples so there can be no simple answer. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

No. Just look at the [[Trail of Tears]] and the [[Wounded Knee Massacre]]. I don't think after the North American Indians (who did NOT practice human sacrifice) who surivived mass slaughter, deportation, the rape of their women, the capture of their land, the deliberate and inadvertant spread of disease were thinking: and they brought us Christianity! What benevolent people! [[User:Poblano|Poblano]] 10:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

My God. I cannot believe that anyone is so historically ignorant that they even could ask such a question. Let’s put it this way: If invaders raped your women, forced their religion on you, stole your land, and exposed your people to diseases that resulted in population loss of 90%, would you be OK with that? I did not think so. White man’s burden? Who asked for your help? We were just fine until you jackasses showed up.--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:30, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:I hate to ruin your liberal-taught preconceived ideas of how America was colonized, but you have been grossly misinformed. There was not nearly as much raping going on as is claimed by anti-European groups. And for the most part, at least in North America, land was not stolen. It was bought by the British/US governments from tribal leaders, but some of the tribe members refused to leave and had to be evicted or killed. And don't pretend like native tribes were having one big peacefest prior to the arrival of Europeans. The fact is that tribes had been at war with each other for centuries, committing atrocities that rivaled or even surpassed those of the colonials. Even when uniting against the so-called "invaders" would have been in their best interests, they didn't do so.
:If it wasn't for European colonization, there would still be wars between tribes going on today. You're welcome.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
DO you have any sources to back that up?--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 14:54, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::I thought "scalping" was common knowledge. Do you really need me to give a source for the practice? Torture was so common among some tribes that it is became a mark of courage to endure it with no outcry. Maybe the 'courage' thing needs a reference, but *sheesh* can't you just go to Google when someone makes a point in a debate?

::Are we airing our different points of view to find out how others think, or do we imagine a huge audience is watching to see who wins? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:55, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Good to know that that rape and murder is something to be thankful for. So remember, the next time someone breaks into your home, kills you, rapes your wife, and carries your children off and sells them into slavery, you are supposed to thank them! No wonder people think conservatives are stupid and racist! They never miss a chance to prove they are!--[[User:Davyjones|Davyjones]] 15:04, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservateur, moral equivocation doesn't make what colonists did either helpful, good, or justified in any way. Just because some of the tribes were at war with each other, or that they commited atrocities that "rivaled or even surpassed" those of the colonists, doesn't make it alright that we devastated them with disease, took any of their lands whatsoever, and commited any acts of violence for the goal of westward conquest. The fact is, colonists were the result of their decimated population, and the loss of their tribal lands, whether through sale or force, and that has to be recognized. And even if it was our intervention that stopped their warring (though clearly, that was not the goal when we set out to expand "our" country), it cost them more than any of their tribal conflics ever did. The natives got the short end of the bargain.--[[User:Stereophile|Stereophile]] 20:45, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

One almost does not know where to begin. As the above poster noted, it is hard to fathom why this question is even asked in 2007. Nervertheless, I will try to address some of the misconceptions I see above. Most native peoples did not practice human sacrifice. As for the person above who states that jative land was not stolen, I agree with the poster who challenged him to provide sources. I noticed that none were forthcoming. As for not uniting in the face of European invasion, you have to remember that Native Americans viewed themsleves as over 500 different nations. Would France, Spain, et. al. have united in the face of an invasion? I also wish to address the remark concering scalping. Around 1980 or so, James Axtell published an article in the William and Mary Quarterly called "The Unkindest Cut" that showed that scalping was a European innovation. European officals paid Indians a bounty for each enemy scalp they brought in. In the eighteenth century, on the Carolina frontier, colonists also collected these bounties. So, who really is the "savage" here? I do not agree with the rather forceful tone of davyjones, but posters on Conservapedia may want to consider this: Some of the things they post can be used against conservatives. If you post something that could be made out to sound "stupid" or "racist," I assure you, there is someone out there who will use it that way. Since what we want is to win people to the conservative side, think before you post. I'm not saying do not say what is on your mind, but think how it can boomarang on conservatives.--[[User:Lobo|Lobo]] 12:35, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:That's the second time you've inserted that nonsense:
:*"Historical records, archaeology, and other sciences strongly indicate the practice [of scalping] originated among certain Native American tribes." [http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/1998/scalping.html]

Hardly nonsense, and this is a good opportunity to point out the limitations of relying on “scholarship” that appears on the internet. The quote you cite from Bray’s article uses the Axtell article (that Lobo refers to above) as its support. There is only one problem. The Axtell article does not support Bray’s contention. The rest of Bray’s article lists scalping incidents that occurred during the French and Indian War which occurred two and half centuries after initial contact between Europeans and Native people. It would really be a good idea to check the veracity of your sources. --[[User:McIntyre|McIntyre]] 11:10, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

==Was the Roman colonization of Europe good for the native people?==
Maybe yes or maybe no. The effect was that Europe became Roman just as Americans became westernized. We will never know, in both cases.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:29, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

== Euro Colonization of the Americas: NO ==
I say no, it was not good for the native peoples. Quite simply because their numbers and identity as a seperate peoples are reduced to almost obscurity. No, it was not good for them. Even if they may have learned certain cultural and civil refinements from the Europeans, they have still been reduced to almost non-existence through disease, war, depletion of their resources, and cultural assimilation and inter-breeding. I'm not giving a good/bad opinion on this so please do not misconstrue it. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 21:04, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== YES/NO ==

i'm gonna ride the fence, yes for those alive today, no for those that died along the way... :)
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:30, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Have you ever been to a reservation besides for the casino or the fireworks? It's not exactly upperclass living by a long shot. The Native people as a whole have higher rates of alcoholism, crime and unemployment, among other things. Good thing we came and saved them all so they can all go to heaven and live with Jesus!--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:13, 12 September 2007 (PST)

Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?

2007-09-13T00:02:05Z

Tehstone: /* Liberal */

{{debate}}

If Jesus were alive today, what end of the political spectrum would he identify himself with? [[Conservative]] or [[Liberal]]? Please back up any assertions with references to the Gospels.

== "WTF?" ==
... would be the reply of Jesus. Seriously, the way Christianity has changed is sacrilegious. Basically all New Testament books are bunk. "St." Peter is pretty unChristly. The books of the Bible were written many years after the events and have been changed over the years. A little bit here and there creates a lot of change. I very much doubt that Jesus went around claiming some of the stuff he did in the later Gospels. How does this relate to politics? Not much, I was rambling...

I think Jesus would not care for what politics is now. He wouldn't align himself to any particular party. --[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 23:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Conservative ==
Where else would He find a home? [[Liberal]]s deny Him. They deny His [[creation|creative]] role,<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Genesis|chap=1|verses=1|version=NASB}}</ref> and they deny the need for Him as Lord and personal Savior. They actually think that if they're good, they'll go to heaven--and that is simply wrong.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=3|verses=10-12|version=KJV}}</ref>

Moreover, [[Jesus]] would never countenance the behaviors in which [[liberal]]s routinely engage, and encourage others to engage.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=27-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
Jesus never said that a man could divorce his wife with a word. He did mention a specific circumstance that applied only to the [[Judaism|Jewish]] custom of engagement, which was less than a marriage but far more than the engagement we know today.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Deuteronomy|chap=24|verses=1-4|version=KJV}}</ref> Jesus now practically abolished divorce entirely.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=16|verses=18|version=KJV}}</ref> Liberals think divorce ought to be free and easy.

The "rehabilitation" of the thief consisted of salvation, and ''not'' of returning him to human society. Jesus was demonstrating that anyone could gain salvation if he would but repent--as this thief did.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=23|verses=42|version=KJV}}</ref>

Lastly: the reference to stumblingblocks<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=14|verses=13|version=KJV}}</ref> has nothing to do with "affirmative action." Rather it has to do with not putting temptation to [[sin]] in one another's way. But to a liberal, no one commits sin by engaging in the traditionally decried vices. Rather, one commits sin merely by having too much money (a thing Jesus never said) or by making the world less wild or by otherwise disagreeing with a liberal.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
: It is dangerous to use Matthew 5:27-30 to condemn liberals - one need only look at the current set of conservatives running for election to see multiple marriages and the occasional affair.
: You appear to have misread what I said about divorce - "In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word." Jesus was against divorce. Again, one need only look at the current conservatives running for election to show that divorce is quite common outside of the liberal circle.
: Let us look at [[Conservative]] to see what the stance there is and how this relates to Jesus's ministry.
:* National defense and high military spending -- Jesus did not side with the Jewish sect that was trying for military overthrow of Rome. All of his acts were non-violet.
He didn't use violets?!--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:* Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity) -- I would suggest reading Mark 10:21-25 to see the stance on what the rich should do.
:* Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty -- Look at John 8:3-11 to see Jesus speaking out against the death penalty (and further rehabilitation of those who commit crimes).
:* Abandonment of public schools in favor of private, particularly using tuition vouchers -- Jesus taught any who came to him without asking for payment. He much more closely resembles a public school teacher than someone advocating only private institutions to teach school.
: Given these it is reasonable to say that he was a very progressive individual for his time and even today his teachings show himself to be much more in line with the liberal platform than the conservative one. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:53, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well put, Mtur. I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today and tried that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" bit in front of a crowd of angry Fundamentalists, the symbol of His death would be a rock. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:13, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't help thinking that if Jesus were alive today, he'd read some of the posts here and rush to the nearest mosque to convert.-Neuro

HE IS DEAD GET OVER IT!{{Unsigned|Leninrules}}
:No, He isn't. But He knew you would think that, and said so to His Apostles.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

----Erm, hello majority of verses here?----
Multiple thousands of verses on poverty can't simply be omitted because some one has a fascination with a few choice ones in Leviticus. Social, you can argue up and down all day, because he lived thousands of years ago, but economically, there's no debate: liberal.{{Unsigned|Applestooranges}}
:That's not all there is to it. Never once did Jesus say that the king ought to keep a royal welfare roll and pay for it out of the people's taxes. Taxes, in fact, exist to pay the full-time salaries of the police and the military. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=6-7|version=NASB}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 11:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In ancient Rome, there was a program called the ''annona''. This was an attempt by the Roman leaders to eliminate poverty in Rome and in part had the government give free grain to about 1/3 of the population of the city. The question of "is it the government's role or the church's role or the individual's role to do charity and take care of people" we see it is a combination of all three. In particular, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/George_W__Bush_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm George Bush] advocates transferring of tax money to religious and non-religious charities with no strings attached. It is unfortunate that in today's world many churches have forgotten their roots in charity and benefactors to the community[http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Winter/Seek-wc.htm] and instead spend their resources trying to convert people by speaking of damnation rather than showing them compassion and living the right way themselves. There is a difference between paying people who are able to work but don't to get away with laziness and helping those who cannot work for whatever reason (If you want Paul's take on this, read 2 Thessalonians 3:8-15). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:04, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
:::That's all very well. But would Jesus say that ''the government'' ought to involve itself in charity, or lay and collect taxes for that purpose? That is the distinction that conservatism makes. And it is a distinction that Paul would have made.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

There is ''no way'' that Jesus would come out on the side of the [[abortion]]ists. He'd be pro-life for sure. [[User:Vossy|Vossy]][[User_talk:Vossy|speak]] 02:03, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==
As stated in [[liberal]] he would clearly fall in the liberal end.
* equal rights for men and women, including participation by men and women in the military
** Starting at Mark 5:25, you have Jesus administering a woman who was menstruating for twelve years. This woman was unclean in Judaic tradition and it was not proper for a man to be talking to a woman who was not family.
** Beginning at John 4:7 Jesus talks to a Samaritan woman. It was not proper for a Jewish man to talk to a foreign woman - there were three strikes against her, unclean, foreign and a woman. In Matthew 15:22 Jesus again talks to a foreign woman, this time a Canaanite for whom he healed her daughter.
** Jesus also accepted women as students. With Luke 10:38, Jesus instructed Mary, the sister of Martha.
** In Luke 13:16, Jesus refers to a woman as a "daughter of Abraham". This phrase occurs no where else in the Bible and parallels the term "son of Abraham" that is often used to describe men.
** With Luke 7:35, Jesus forgives the sins of a woman and refers to all people as children of wisdom.
** Many of the stories that Jesus told and later was mentioned in Acts has a man and a woman (rather than just a man). Luke 2:25-38 Luke 4:25-38 Luke 4:31 Luke 7:36 Luke 17:34
** In Jesus's time, it was possible for a man to divorce his wife with a word. In Mark 10:11-12 Jesus says that a man does not have this right and treats men and women as equal.
* distributing wealth from the rich to the poor
** It should not be necessary to iterate the number of times Jesus's ministry is helping the poor. One need only read the Beatitudes in Luke 6:20 and 6:24 to see his take on this subject.
* government programs to rehabilitate criminals
** The most famous rehabilitation of a thief on the cross to whom he says "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Luke 23:43.
** There are other accounts of Jesus talking with criminals and outcasts from society.
*taxpayer-funded rather than private medical care
** Again, it should not be necessary to iterate the number of times that Jesus healed people who were poor and could not afford proper care. If anyone is sick, they should be healed.
* support of government programs such as welfare
** This closely relates to the distribution of wealth to the poor.
* support of affirmative action
** Much like that mentioned in equal rights (above), Jesus spent much time with foreigners - people of other races. He makes no distinction in teaching them, and most famously in the story of the good Samaritan.
** Moving from the Gospels to the writings of Paul, Romans 14:13 says "Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." Affirmative action seeks to remove these stumbling blocks that have been placed by society in the past.
--[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:30, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:This page has a colossal joke on it, and you're it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I thought Mtur made some very clear well sourced argument and that this rebuttal is a little uncivil. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:10, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You thought wrong. We see here some classic misconstructions of Scripture of the type that always comes from unbelievers.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Well you are certainly the model of Christian humility Terry.--[[User:Tehstone|Tehstone]] 17:01, 12 September 2007 (PST)
::::Whoa, whoah. You called for cites from the Gospels to support positions; you said nothing about about the constructions to be placed on the quotes. How is it that you get to decide whether or not these are correct interpretations? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

While a few of the beatitudes are in Luke chapter 6:20-24, the complete sermon of the beatitudes can be found in Matthew chapter 1:1-12. --[[user:steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:15, 16 March 2007

Though I'm guessing Jesus wouldn't want to get involved in our ugly political system at this point in time, I would imagine that he would tilt left. I can't imagine him supporting the war; in Romans 12:19, he says:
<blockquote>
Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
</blockquote> Even more simply, one of the commandments is not to kill. There is no way he would support the way our conservative president has sanctioned both revenge and killing.

Also of the government, the Bible says:
<blockquote>
Isaiah 10:1-3 – "Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees, who write oppressive statutes, to turn aside the needy from justice and to rob the poor of my people of their right, that widows may be your spoil, and that you may make the orphans your prey! What will you do on the day of punishment, in the calamity that will come from far away?"

And of helping people in general:
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Deuteronomy 15:7-11 -- If there is among you anyone in need, a member of your community in any of your towns within the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted toward your needy neighbor. You should rather open your hand, willingly lending enough to meet the need, whatever it may be. Be careful that you do not entertain a mean thought, thinking, "The seventh year, the year of remission, is near," and therefore view your needy neighbor with hostility and give nothing; your neighbor might cry to the Lord against you, and you would incur guilt. Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, “Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.”
</blockquote>
So Jesus would also agree with the notion that politicians should not marginalize the poor and that people should help the poor in general. Although no mention of government is made in the last verse I mentioned, government is not excluded from helping people. And that eliminates any argument that the government should not help the poor because they are lazy and don't deserve it.

So, without a doubt, I would say that Jesus, if he'd even vote, would be Liberal. --[[User:Arod|Arod]] 01:58, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

He'd have to be on the left -- all those stories about giving away all but the rags on your back and working for the poor. Though he would probably be anti-abortion, pornography and so on. It's quite possible, after all, to be a religious Left-winger with some or many conservative views. --[[User:AppalledBystander|AppalledBystander]] 06:47, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus was the original Bobby Kennedy. How could he support corruption, deceit, republicans? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:00, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Neither ==
Jesus was a religious figure, not a political figure. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just because he was a religious figure does not mean that he did not have a stance on various social issues that can be placed on a political spectrum. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 21:09, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Considering what was said above, and also his own teachings (as according to the bible), I don't think Jesus would claim a political status. Although I could see him leaning more to a conservative side as far as abortion and gay marriage is concerned. (No one is quite sure what Jesus thought of gay marriage but with biblical allusions I would say he was against it)--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 22:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I would have to say, he'd probably be more neutral, and be like your average American and have a little mix of both. He'd be for gun control, as he didn't promote violence and certainly wouldn't embrace the right for someone to take the life of someone else. Abortion, he'd be against of course. Gay marriage... well he didn't tell hookers to stop being hookers did he? I think that would be an interesting thing to think about. I really don't think he'd give a hard-lined no. He would certainly think though that both liberals and conservatives need to be much kinder to each other. And he honestly... probably wouldn't like our president. If anyone is wondering why, I'll gladly tell you why I think so.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 06:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Actually, He ''did'' tell hookers to stop being hookers. In the same breath He told men to stop picking them up, and He ''also'' told men to stop looking at women ''as if'' they (the men) wanted to pick them (the women) up.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}</ref>
:And as regards weapons control, He once said that any man who didn't carry a sword ought to get one.<ref>{{Bible ref|book=Luke|chap=22|verses=35-37|version=NASB}}</ref> That doesn't sound like being a proponent of gun control to me.
:And why wouldn't He like our President? On the contrary, He'd say that George W. Bush was and is doing exactly what a man in governing authority should do.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I think he'd be telling Dubya to get the mote out of his own eye before he tried taking a beam out of another's. Or, to paraphrase, 'sort yourself out first.' [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 03:17, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You got your motes and beams mixed up, but that's a minor quibble. The major point is this: you seem to be suggesting that the [[United States]] deserved to be attacked in the [[World Trade Center incident]]. That incident was the start of a war of [[Islam]] against [[Christianity]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:18, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Not for a minute do I think the United States 'deserved' to be attacked as it was on 9-11 (and a damned tense day it was - we were stood-to within minutes of the first strike and reverted to a lower alert status about three days later). However I do think Mr. Bush's response was not appropriate. The first principle of war is to correctly identify and locate the target. Target identification was not a problem - bin Laden and al-Qaeda promptly claimed responsibility for the attack - but localizing the target was and still is. And Iraq was entirely peripheral to the attack, particularly since the existence of WMDs in that country has become increasingly doubtful. As for your assertion that this is a war between Islam and Christianity, I also call that into question. There are any number of devout Muslims living and working in America, and serving in her armed forces. This is asymetric warfare against a numerically small band of extremists who came up with an effective way to strike at a powerful nation. At that, they didn't originate the idea; Tom Clancey did, in his book '''Debt of Honor''' - and he got raked over the coals by some who considered him to be almost a co-conspirator, because he had the nerve to write a fictional work exposing and discussing a potential weakness. Myself, I think if the administration of the day had paid attention to what he said, there might have been some thought given to how to avoid or deflect such an attack. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 16:11, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You need to publish this on the Talk page of the article on the Iraq War. Not that I agree entirely with your analysis, but it still needs to be where a lot of people can read it and comment on it. That's all I have time to say right now, but I wanted you to know that I had seen it--and that I appreciate your intellectual honesty.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:22, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I think if Jesus was alive today he would be very disappointed in all of us for arguing and bickering so much about a religion with care, compassion, and love as its fundamental principles. Not sure what he would say about politics except that it must be the devil's work.
-Gasmonkey

Totally agreed. He didn't really follow any set authority. He might identify with causes of both sides, but he would never become involved in something as corrupt as politics, on either side.
-mikeyc252

He won't need to. When he returns, he'll just take over. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 00:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Scrap? That's the most logical thing I've seen on here so far. And I must say that I agree. --[steponme1623|steponme1623]] 11:22, 16 March 2007

It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven.[http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/reaganyouth/jesuswasacommunist.html]]

Politics are human. Jesus is devine.--[[User:Mister Bug|Mister Bug]] 19:59, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Anarchist ==
Jesus would realize that politics keep about 49% of the country unhappy with each decision. And what would Jesus want for his people other than to be happy? {{unsigned|Caboose84}}

== Socialist ==
Jesus was clearly embroiled in politics. Furthermore, Jesus was also set against the hierarchy of the time. Jesus was a radical, he may not have advocated violence, but he was certainly associated with leading Jewish "terrorists" of the time, even if it was to convince them to be pacifist.

Jesus main perogative was to address the failures of the market system established by Judaism, this does not mean Judaism was evil or anything of the sort. He simply developed the humanitarian aspect of the market. As such, Jesus was the first "socialist", or to a secularist, a leading left-wing thinker. there could be an arguement he simply reasserted aspects of Judaism, which he felt were not being upheld by the leaders of the faith.

From this perspective, a socialist would believe that if Jesus were here, he would be shocked at the idolisation of one person. That he was the cause of so many wars, and his work could be used against the people he sought to help. To Jesus, it would be the community that is most important. {{unsigned|JamesII}}

==Libertarian==
I get the definite feeling from the Sermon on the Mount that Jesus would be in favor of [[free trade]] and yet I think he'd be a pretty hippy dippy supporter of [[peace and love]]. [[User:Babbit|Babbit]]

== Stop it everyone ==
I'm fairly sure that trying to 'claim' Jesus in a political point-scoring game is fairly sacreligious. 'He would say' is putting words into his mouth; 'he did say' (eg Matt 5:43-48) is better. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
: Is the question of what the ministry of Jesus says about the social issues are facing us in today's world not a valid one? That it is perfectly acceptable to quote the Bible as fact for historical references but not for social and moral ones? If the Bible is to be taken as literal truth or the source of salvation then it is important to look at what is said.
: The Old Testament is full of fire and Brimstone, but the New Testament is one of love and compassion - a new covenant with the Lord. In Galatians 5:6 we see Paul saying that one part of the Jewish law is not key to being saved (and by extension nor is the rest of it), that Jesus is part of a new covenant.
: I would be most disappointed if it was only acceptable to quote the Bible when it supports one vision and not others. How else is one to learn what salvation as a Christian means? Is it not the right thing to do to try to rehabilitate criminals? to protest the death penalty? to give to the poor? to make health care available to everyone?
: It is one thing to try to stamp out that which we do not like. It is quite another to try to promote that which is good. I would contend that it is better and more in tune with the new covenant to first promote good within ourselves and others than attempting to damn them. Matthew 5:44 is an excellent example of this. Luke 9:52-56 (especially verse 56) is an important read - "For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
: And so, I say again, that it is appropriate to look at the ministry of Jesus and how our own elected officials live up to that ideal and promote it in their legislation. It is this way, promote his ministry to the rest of the country and set an example of that love of all our citizens as an example for the rest of the world. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll say this for you, [[User:Mtur|Mtur]]: in the above presentation, you're scrupulously honest. I cannot agree that Jesus would side with you as regards the death penalty, government-enforced charity, or the proper policy regarding prisons and prisoners. (I can't use the actual, official word for this last discipline, because it sounds, frankly, obscene. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.) But I know now, from the above, that your theories arise from confusion as to exactly Who Jesus is, and the nature of His ''actual'' Mission.

:: That Mission is not primarily about charity; nor is it about the redistribution of wealth. That's a common-enough mistake. But Jesus' displeasure was not about the mere ''possession'' of great wealth but rather the ''worship'' of wealth. Some people actually think that money will buy them happiness. It won't, and it certainly won't buy them salvation--a thing that Jesus attempted to tell people again and again. But no reading of Scripture convinced me that He would confiscate people's substance for confiscation's sake.

:: Nor is charity the mission of government. {{Bible ref|book=Romans|chap=13|verses=1-7|version=NASB}} tells us what the mission of government is: to stop by force people who employ force to do wrong against others.

:: Charity is an individual's business. Furthermore, I would argue--purely inductively, I admit--that God does not bless government welfare programs.

:: You spoke of rehabilitation. In this connection, let me quote the actor Burt Lancaster, in his romanticized portrait of Robert Stroud, the ''Birdman of Alcatraz''. Rehabilitation means ''to re-invest a person with dignity''. Where is the ''dignity'' in being an habitual client of the government? An empty belly can be as strong a chain as tempered steel. I see nothing ''dignified'' about the dormitory-style "housing projects," or the spectacle of people lining up at grilled windows for their latest allotment of food coupons and so on. Yes, people do line up--and they vote for those who will keep that money coming, with no thought to where the money is coming ''from''--but they pay a price more terrible than you can imagine. I know it, because I have seen it--up close and personal, as a temporary clerk in a welfare office, and as a clinical clerk in a charity hospital.

:: But for all that, at least in your last presentation you asked the right questions.

:: Be assured of this: a day will come when Jesus will rule directly on this earth. What place any of us will have in His regime, I will not speculate here. But on the ''nature'' of his regime I don't have to speculate; I have Scripture to give me some very strong hints. He will probably own all means of production, distribution, and exchange. He will build that "True Communism" of which the [[Union of Soviet Socialist Republics|Soviet Union]] long boasted--and ''only'' He will be able to make it work. Why? Because only He can be trusted with that kind of authority. Only He can examine qualifications, and ''assign'' people to various tasks, and make sure that everyone gets just what he needs, no less and no more than is good for him.

:: Any human who thinks he's up to that task is a strutting pretender, and not to be trusted. That's why we support [[capitalism]]--because it is the worst economic system ever invented, ''except'' for all the others that have human beings running them. (Furthermore, the Parables of the Talents and the Minas depend on a form of capitalism being in place, so no, Jesus did not condemn capital ''per se''.)

:: Until the day that Jesus rules directly on this earth, we do the best we can. But we do not do it by vesting in any government such powers as belong properly only to Him.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 21:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesars, Give Unto God What Is Gods. Give Unto Republican & Democrats What Is Republicans & Democrats, Give Unto God What Is Gods.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:35, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== References ==
<references/>

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2007-09-12T23:56:55Z

Tehstone: /* Ignorant_Illiteracy */

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner

'''There are multiple creation stories:'''
Genesis 1 has one creation story (with the animals coming before Adam; Genesis 2 has a different story, with Adam coming before the animals (except in 1 English translation among many)

There are alos other creation stories in the Bible with inconsistent details.

==Ignorant_Illiteracy==
I don't understand it, therefore it's all rubbish! This tendency towards willing ignorance when pertaining to the Biblical Word of God isn't inconsistent with a person's total rejection of His will for mankind. Learning and understanding the Bible won't come about by the application of your own view of the world. The bashing comments found here aren't made by those that are seeking knowledge. They could've found those on the internet by typing in a few simple search words. Undoubtably there are feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged people who choose to criticise ancient writtings originating thousands of years ago because they are unable to fathom their content. Of course this isn't an American preponderancy for ranting against something not understood by someone. Rather, it is the natural worldly man who engages in such infantile dialogue. Usually just prior to book burnings and massive social rallies against some imagined foe. Finally, there are no inconsistent details except to the willfully ignorant, and illiterate who've already chosen their own foolish intentions. But I have digressed a bit here. There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with you, except that I still think that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God's concept of time is beyond what we can ever know while on earth.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that all science, regardless of it's aim or purpose should be disregarded when the bible speaks otherwise on the same subject. America is really going down the tubes, and not because we have forgotten god as I'm sure you would like to remind me, but because too many Americans put too much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by, for the most part, uneducated men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't take the Illiad or the Odyssey or anything else from Greek mythology as true. It's all allegorical and mythological. However you think the Bible is different simply because it hasn't lost popularity yet and it has 2000 of ignorant followers for you to point to as your backup. If you can show me any compelling evidence why i should believe in the Christian god, or ANY god for that matter I would be more than happy to listen, but I have grown up in all kinds of churches, all with different messages but the same bible, doesn't sound like the One Absolute Truth to me. And please don't label me as one who isn't seeking knowledge or as a "feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged" person. Believe, me I have studied the Bible, from more than one perspective and with ever changing world views. It simply doesn't hold up to rational criticism.--[[User:tehstone|tehstone]] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (PST)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2007-09-12T23:55:50Z

Tehstone: /* Ignorant_Illiteracy */

Pollution

2007-09-12T23:35:59Z

Tehstone:

'''Pollution''' is contamination of a system with harmful foreign components.<ref>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pollution</ref>. The most common usage of the word pollution refers to [[environmental pollution]], which is contamination of the air, ground, or water by harmful chemicals or particulate matter. A less common use is noise pollution, which is "contamination" of a quiet space by annoying sounds.

==References==
<references />

[[category:environment]]

Deforestation

2007-09-12T23:32:44Z

Tehstone:

'''Deforestation''' is the net removal of [[tree]]s from [[forest]]ed land. Deforestation in large amounts can often be detrimental to an environment, increasing the chance of erosion and landslides as well as destroying natural habitat that many species rely on for survival.
[[Category:Environment]]

Endangered Species Act

2007-09-12T23:29:15Z

Tehstone:

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was enacted to provide federal protection for [[species]], such as the [[bald eagle]],<ref>In 2007, the bald eagle was removed from the endangered species but laws against possession of its feathers remained in place.[http://www.nativetimes.com/index.asp?action=displayarticle&article_id=8883]</ref> that were placed on the list of endangered species.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act divides the responsibilities for protecting endangered species between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce.

The act was instrumental in ensuring that many of God's creatures have not since died out.
== References ==

<references/>

==External Links==
*http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295359,00.html ''The Endangered Species Act Out of Control'', [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]].

[[category:environment]]

J. Edgar Hoover

2007-09-12T04:24:05Z

Tehstone:

'''John Edgar Hoover''' (1895-1972) was a controversial director of the [[FBI]]. Hoover as FBI Director was a staunch opponent of [[Communism]], [[liberalism]], [[organized labor]], and [[homosexuals]]. Hoover served as director for 48 years until his death. He founded the FBI's 'public enemies' program, under which such criminals as [[John Dillinger]], [[Bonnie Parker]] and [[Clyde Barrow]] were successfully caught. He enforced [[prohibition]] when it was in effect.

==Controversy==
Hoover was not opposed to the use of illegal methods in collecting evidence against suspects using such tactics as burglary and illegal wire tapping. Additionally, his investigations were often focused on individuals with differing political or social ideals rather than suspected criminals. Most notable were his attempts to block voter education drives and boycotts organized by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

==References==
<references/>
Wilson, Gahan, ''The Big Book of Weirdos'', Paradox Press, New York, 1995

{{DEFAULTSORT:Hoover, J. Edgar}}
[[category:Biographies]]

Embryonic stem cells

2007-05-23T06:17:31Z

Tehstone:

'''Embryonic stem cells''' are taken from the inner part of a young embryo, also known as a [[blastocyst]]. An embryo reaches the blastocyst stage about 4-5 days after [[fertilization]]. At that point they contain about 50-150 cells.

Embryonic stem cells can differentiate into the three "germ layers": [[ectoderm]], [[endoderm]] and [[mesoderm]]. The 220 types of cells in humans are all based on these germ layers. Some scientists have shown effectively that embryonic stem cells have greater differentiation potential, and divide into greater numbers, than [[adult stem cells]] can.

[[Pro-life]] conservatives consider taking stem cells from human embryos, as tantamount to [[abortion]], which they believe to be a hideous and [[evil]] practice. President Bush was pressured by [[Liberal]] [[Scientist]]s into funding stem cell research[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html].
[[category:biology]]

Vietnam War

2007-05-23T05:54:58Z

Tehstone: /* Opposition to the Vietnam War */

[[Image:SaigonFall.jpg|thumb|South Vietnamese residents flee [[Saigon]], as North Vietnamese forces enter the city.]]
The '''Vietnam War''', officially the '''Second Indochina Conflict''', was initiated by the [[United States]], in response to a poll conducted that suggested given the planned democratic election after the reduction of the demilitarized zone upheld until [[1956]] since the war would lead to a certain [[communist]] victory.

The 1954 Geneva agreement provided for a cease-fire between communist and anti-communist nationalist forces, the temporary division of Vietnam at approximately the 17th parallel, provisional northern (communist) and southern (noncommunist) zone governments, and the evacuation of anti-communist Vietnamese from northern to southern Vietnam. The agreement also called for an election to be held by July 1956 to bring the two provisional zones under a unified government. However, the South Vietnamese Government refused to accept this provision. On October 26, 1955, South Vietnam declared itself the Republic of Vietnam. <ref>U.S. State Department, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4130.htm Vietnam], December 2006. </ref>

A frustrated [[Ho Chi Minh]] eventually decided to militarily move into South Vietnam with his [[Viet Minh]] (later [[Viet Cong]]) as the increasingly unpopular US controlled government employed stronger tactics to maintain the South Vietnamese people under Diem. In retaliation the US sent 'advisers' to help Diem keep the situation under control before stepping up to a full scale ground war. The war was the longest in American history, lasting approximately 16 years. It was also the first war fought by America in which the stated military goals of the Americans were not met and it is now widely agreed that it is the first war America actually lost failing to win the hearts and minds of both the Vietnamese and the people back home. America left the war in 1973 under an arrangement that was supposed to keep South Vietnam free from the Communist north, but in 1975 the north invaded and quickly conquered the country. Today Vietnam has a communist government.

==Opposition to the Vietnam War==

The Vietnam War is remembered as creating massive opposition in the [[United States]]. Millions of Americans, including some known as [[hippies]], were opposed to the Vietnam War. They felt that they had been lied to by the government and that the war was unnecessary. Others objected for reasons such as a commitment to [[pacifism]]. This opposition inspired such songs as "The I Feel Like I'm Fixing to Die Rag," by [[Country Joe McDonald]], "Give Peace a Chance," by [[John Lennon]], "Run Through the Jungle," by [[Creedence Clearwater Revival]], and "War," by [[Edwin Starr]]. This opposition also manifested itself in the form of protests. One of the most famous protests of this era occurred at Kent State University in [[Ohio]], during which four students were shot and killed by the Ohio State National Guard following several days of rioting and the firebombing of the ROTC building. The shooting was later determined to be justified when a federal court dismissed the case against the eight guardsmen indicted.[http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm]

It wasn't until the Reagan era that popular culture, and society, began to embrace Vietnam veterans as heroes by creating characters like John Rambo and John "Hannibal" Smith.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==

*Larry Berman, [http://hnn.us/articles/37934.html ''Perfect Spy: The Incredible Double Life of Pham Xuan An''], Time Magazine (Smithsonian Books/HarperCollins, 2007). [http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060888381/Perfect_Spy/index.aspx]
*[http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/almanac-saigon.pdf SIGINT and the Fall of Saigon, April 1975].
*[http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=6 "Secrecy, Freedom and Empire: Lessons for Today from Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"].
*[http://www.onpower.org/foreign_regional_Asia.html#10 Vietnam War].

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Vietnam War

2007-05-23T02:40:42Z

Tehstone: /* Opposition to the Vietnam War */

[[Image:SaigonFall.jpg|thumb|South Vietnamese residents flee [[Saigon]], as North Vietnamese forces enter the city.]]
The '''Vietnam War''', officially the '''Second Indochina Conflict''', was initiated by the [[United States]], in response to a poll conducted that suggested given the planned democratic election after the reduction of the demilitarized zone upheld until [[1956]] since the war would lead to a certain [[communist]] victory.

The 1954 Geneva agreement provided for a cease-fire between communist and anti-communist nationalist forces, the temporary division of Vietnam at approximately the 17th parallel, provisional northern (communist) and southern (noncommunist) zone governments, and the evacuation of anti-communist Vietnamese from northern to southern Vietnam. The agreement also called for an election to be held by July 1956 to bring the two provisional zones under a unified government. However, the South Vietnamese Government refused to accept this provision. On October 26, 1955, South Vietnam declared itself the Republic of Vietnam. <ref>U.S. State Department, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4130.htm Vietnam], December 2006. </ref>

A frustrated [[Ho Chi Minh]] eventually decided to militarily move into South Vietnam with his [[Viet Minh]] (later [[Viet Cong]]) as the increasingly unpopular US controlled government employed stronger tactics to maintain the South Vietnamese people under Diem. In retaliation the US sent 'advisers' to help Diem keep the situation under control before stepping up to a full scale ground war. The war was the longest in American history, lasting approximately 16 years. It was also the first war fought by America in which the stated military goals of the Americans were not met and it is now widely agreed that it is the first war America actually lost failing to win the hearts and minds of both the Vietnamese and the people back home. America left the war in 1973 under an arrangement that was supposed to keep South Vietnam free from the Communist north, but in 1975 the north invaded and quickly conquered the country. Today Vietnam has a communist government.

==Opposition to the Vietnam War==

The Vietnam War is remembered as creating massive opposition in the [[United States]]. Millions of Americans, including a large percentage of young people, were opposed to the Vietnam War and held a belief in [[pacifism]]. This opposition inspired such songs as "The I Feel Like I'm Fixing to Die Rag," by [[Country Joe McDonald]], "Give Peace a Chance," by [[John Lennon]], "Run Through the Jungle," by [[Creedence Clearwater Revival]], and "War," by [[Edwin Starr]]. This opposition also manifested itself in the form of protests. One of the most famous protests of this era occurred at Kent State University in [[Ohio]], during which four students were shot and killed by the Ohio State National Guard following several days of rioting and the firebombing of the ROTC building. The shooting was later determined to be justified when a federal court dismissed the case against the eight guardsmen indicted.[http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm]

It wasn't until the Reagan era that popular culture, and society, began to embrace Vietnam veterans as heroes by creating characters like John Rambo and John "Hannibal" Smith.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==

*Larry Berman, [http://hnn.us/articles/37934.html ''Perfect Spy: The Incredible Double Life of Pham Xuan An''], Time Magazine (Smithsonian Books/HarperCollins, 2007). [http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060888381/Perfect_Spy/index.aspx]
*[http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/almanac-saigon.pdf SIGINT and the Fall of Saigon, April 1975].
*[http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=6 "Secrecy, Freedom and Empire: Lessons for Today from Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"].
*[http://www.onpower.org/foreign_regional_Asia.html#10 Vietnam War].

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Pacifism

2007-05-23T01:56:40Z

Tehstone:

A pacifist is one who refuses to participate in any violence. "[[Conscientious objector]]" laws usually permit pacifists to avoid a draft (mandatory enlistment) in war.
Pacifism is supported by [[peace churches]].
At the time of the American Revolution, a substantial percentage of the colonists were [[Quakers]], a pacifist faith. Thus the Continental Army struggled to enlist enough soldiers.
== Biblical references about Christian nonviolence==
The following verses and interpretations are used by some Biblical scholars as evidence for Christian [[nonviolence]].
=== General ===
* "Love does no harm to its neighbour. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (Romans 13:10 NIV)
* "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Corinthians 10:3-5 NIV)
* "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you." (Matthew 5:38-42 NIV)
* "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:43-48 NIV)

=== Obedience to state authorities ===
* A Christian's "struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12 NIV)
* Jesus, the apostles (Acts 5:17-42) and Daniel (Daniel 6) disobeyed state authorities.
* Christians should obey ALL state authorities (John 19:10-11; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:1-7; Titus 3:1-2; 1 Peter 2:13-24) because "it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God." (1 Peter 2:19 NIV); hence, it would be sinful to help one government overthrow another government.

=== Compatibility with the Old Testament ===
Numerous views exist about the systematic role of Christ's [[New Covenant]], including [[Supersessionism]], [[Covenant Theology]], [[Dispensationalism]] and [[New Covenant Theology]].

* Christ allowed people to have a personal relationship with God through spiritual, not physical, birth (John 3:1-21).
* The veil separating the [[Holy of Holies]] was torn during Christ's death and allowed God to dwell inside each person rather than the [[Temple in Jerusalem]] (Mark 15:38; Hebrews 9).
* For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever." And this is the word that was preached to you. (1 Peter 1:23-25 NIV)

The spiritual emphasis of the New Testament leads some Biblical scholars to support love of the sinner with nonviolent hate of the sin.

== Resistance to Pacifism ==
Despite the teachings of Jesus which were always pacifist in nature, a decent portion of Christians feel that war and other forms of violence are acceptable in some cases. Terms such as "Just War" have been created in order to give validity to this ideal and use the reasoning that there are certain threats to American life and to Christianity that are worthy of aggressive opposition.

== See also ==
* [[Peace churches]]
* [[Christian anarchism]]
* [[Christian vegetarianism]]
* [[Simple living]]
* [[Intentional living]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.plowcreek.org/bible_pacifism.htm Biblical Christian nonviolence]
* [http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/cpt/article_060823wink.shtml Myth of Redemptive Violence]
* [http://www.loveyourenemies.org LoveYourEnemies.org]
* [http://www.harmlessasdoves.com Harmless as Doves]
* [http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell41.html Article from conservative Christian]
* [http://www.girardianlectionary.net Girardian Reflections on the Lectionary]
* [http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6889 Matthew 5:38-41 explained by Walter Wink]
* [http://www.ringsurf.com/netring?ring=mlw_w;action=list Christian Peace bloggers]

[[Category:philosophy]]
[[category:politics]]
[[category:religion]]

Vietnam War

2007-05-23T01:50:59Z

Tehstone: /* Opposition to the Vietnam War */

[[Image:SaigonFall.jpg|thumb|South Vietnamese residents flee [[Saigon]], as North Vietnamese forces enter the city.]]
The '''Vietnam War''', officially the '''Second Indochina Conflict''', was initiated by the [[United States]], in response to a poll conducted that suggested given the planned democratic election after the reduction of the demilitarized zone upheld until [[1956]] since the war would lead to a certain [[communist]] victory.

The 1954 Geneva agreement provided for a cease-fire between communist and anti-communist nationalist forces, the temporary division of Vietnam at approximately the 17th parallel, provisional northern (communist) and southern (noncommunist) zone governments, and the evacuation of anti-communist Vietnamese from northern to southern Vietnam. The agreement also called for an election to be held by July 1956 to bring the two provisional zones under a unified government. However, the South Vietnamese Government refused to accept this provision. On October 26, 1955, South Vietnam declared itself the Republic of Vietnam. <ref>U.S. State Department, Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4130.htm Vietnam], December 2006. </ref>

A frustrated [[Ho Chi Minh]] eventually decided to militarily move into South Vietnam with his [[Viet Minh]] (later [[Viet Cong]]) as the increasingly unpopular US controlled government employed stronger tactics to maintain the South Vietnamese people under Diem. In retaliation the US sent 'advisers' to help Diem keep the situation under control before stepping up to a full scale ground war. The war was the longest in American history, lasting approximately 16 years. It was also the first war fought by America in which the stated military goals of the Americans were not met and it is now widely agreed that it is the first war America actually lost failing to win the hearts and minds of both the Vietnamese and the people back home. America left the war in 1973 under an arrangement that was supposed to keep South Vietnam free from the Communist north, but in 1975 the north invaded and quickly conquered the country. Today Vietnam has a communist government.

==Opposition to the Vietnam War==

The Vietnam War is remembered as creating massive opposition in the [[United States]]. Millions of Americans, including a large percentage of young people, were opposed to the Vietnam War and held a belief in [[pacifism]]. This opposition inspired such songs as "The I Feel Like I'm Fixing to Die Rag," by [[Country Joe McDonald]], "Give Peace a Chance," by [[John Lennon]], "Run Through the Jungle," by [[Creedence Clearwater Revival]], and "War," by [[Edwin Starr]]. This opposition also manifested itself in the form of protests. One of the most famous protests of this era occurred at Kent State University in [[Ohio]], during which four students were shot and killed by the Ohio State National Guard following several days of rioting and the firebombing of the ROTC building. The shooting was later determined to be justified when a federal court dismissed the case against the eight guardsmen indicted.[http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/LEWIHEN.htm]

It wasn't until the Reagan era that popular culture, and society, began to embrace Vietnam veterans as heroes by creating characters like John Rambo and John "Hannibal" Smith.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==

*Larry Berman, [http://hnn.us/articles/37934.html ''Perfect Spy: The Incredible Double Life of Pham Xuan An''], Time Magazine (Smithsonian Books/HarperCollins, 2007). [http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060888381/Perfect_Spy/index.aspx]
*[http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/almanac-saigon.pdf SIGINT and the Fall of Saigon, April 1975].
*[http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=6 "Secrecy, Freedom and Empire: Lessons for Today from Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"].
*[http://www.onpower.org/foreign_regional_Asia.html#10 Vietnam War].

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Europe

2007-05-23T01:39:35Z

Tehstone:

[[Image:Europe_Map.gif|thumb|300 px|Europe is shown here in green]]

Europe comprises a large peninsula at the west of the Eurasian land mass.

It stretches from the [[Ural]] Mountains in [[Siberia]] on the east, to the western coast of Spain and Portugal and the islands of [[Great Britain]], [[Ireland]] and [[Iceland]]. It is bounded to the north by the [[Arctic]] Ocean, and to the south by the [[Mediterranean]] Sea.

It is home to more than 10% of the worlds population (Around 600,000,000) yet covers only 2% of the land.
Europe is geographically and culturally very diverse.

The [[European Union]] comprises 27 separate states and has the highest GDP of any political entity in the world.

Major countries include [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Spain]], [[Italy]], [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]], and the [[United Kingdom]].

== History ==

[[World War I]] and [[World War II]] started in Europe, and large battles took place in Europe. During the [[Cold War]] Europe was split into a democratic western part and communist eastern part. [[European integration]] has been a theme in European relations since the Cold War ended, see the [[European Union]].

[[France]] and [[Germany]] remained neutral in the US led Operation Iraqi Freedom, while some European states, notably the [[United Kingdom]], have sent troops as members of the coalition.

[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:European Countries ]]

Europe

2007-05-23T01:39:14Z

Tehstone:

[[Image:Europe_Map.gif|thumb|300 px|Europe is shown here in green]]

Europe comprises a large peninsula at the west of the Eurasian land mass.

It stretches from the [[Ural]] Mountains in [[Siberia]] on the east, to the western coast of Spain and Portugal and the islands of [[Great Britain]], [[Ireland]] and [[Iceland]]. It is bounded to the north by the [[Arctic]] Ocean, and to the south by the [[Mediterranean]] Sea.

It is home to more than 10% of the worlds population (Around 600,000,000) yet covers only 2% of the land.
Europe is geographically and culturally very diverse.

The [[European Union]] comprises 27 separate states and has the highest GDP of any political entity in the world.

Major countries include [[France]], [[Germany]], [[Spain]], [[Italy]], [[Russia]], [[Ukraine]], and the [[United Kingdom]].

== History ==

[[World War I]] and [[World War II]] started in Europe, and large battles took place in Europe. During the [[Cold War]] Europe was split into a democratic western part and communist eastern part. [[European integration]] has been a theme in European relations since the Cold War ended, see the [[European Union]].

[[France]] and [[Germany]] remained neutral in the US led Operation Iraqi Freedom{{fact}}, while some European states, notably the [[United Kingdom]], have sent troops as members of the coalition.

[[Category:Continents]]
[[Category:European Countries ]]

European Union

2007-05-23T01:36:17Z

Tehstone:

[[Image:567rugyhj.png|right|thumb|300px|Flag of the European Union.]]
The '''European Union (EU)''' is a legal and economic union of 27 [[Europe|European]] nations. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the [[Maastricht Treaty]], though its predecessor, the European Economic Community, was founded in 1957.

As an institution, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than is the case with most international bodies; 13 of its member states also use a common [[currency]], the [[Euro]]. It is not, however, generally regarded as a federation or state in its own right. Rather, it stands somewhere between these two points.

==Structure==

The EU, technically speaking, consists of three separate "pillars" - the '''European Communities''', the '''Common Foreign and Security Policy''', and '''Police and Judicial Co-Operation in Criminal Matters'''. The most important of these "pillars" is the European Communities, and the term "European Union" is often used as a synonym for the European Communities.

The EU is governed primarily by three institutions: the '''Council''', the '''European Commission''' and the '''European Parliament'''.

The Council consists of representatives of each member state. These representatives change depending on what the purpose of the Council's meeting is and what is being discussed (for example, the ministers of finance of each country may attend a meeting on fiscal policy).

The Commission functions roughly as the EU's executive branch. It consists of 27 Commissioners, one nominated by each member state, though on taking office the Commissioners are required to put aside their allegiance to their own countries and to act in the interests of the EU as a whole. The President of the Commission acts to some extent as a figurehead for the EU, and is the nearest thing there is to a "President of Europe". The current Commission President is [[José Manuel Barroso]], a conservative and a former Prime Minister of Portugal. Perhaps the best known Commission President was [[Jacques Delors]] (1985-1995), a French socialist who passionately favoured European integration. A personal enemy of Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]], he was famously attacked by the conservative British tabloid newspaper ''The Sun'' with the slogan "Up yours, Delors".

The European Parliament consists of 785 members directly elected by the citizens of the member states. National parties sit in broad Europe-wide groupings: for example, most members of left-wing parties sit together as the "Party of European Socialists". No party grouping currently has an overall majority, but the main conservative grouping (the European People's Party) currently has the largest number of seats (277).

The EU has its own judicial apparatus, consisting most notably of the '''Court of First Instance''' and the '''European Court of Justice''', the latter being the supreme judicial authority of the Union. It should not be confused with the [[European Court of Human Rights]], which is entirely separate from the EU and its institutions.

==Sovereignty==

The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, the EU member states are obligated to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice. This system of government takes sovereignty from the nation, and rests it in the EU court of Justice. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the Nation. By the rules of The Treaty of Westphalia, nations are defined by their rite of Self-Sovereignty.

==Criticism==

A significant number of Europeans on the political right of centre are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. Such people are known in British English as "Eurosceptics", and they include such people as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure) and the members of the [[UK Independence Party]]. They also, however, include less well-respected right-wing politicians belonging to far right or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies.

Additionally, many proponents of [[Rapture]] Theology believe that the [[Anti-Christ]] will be a product of the EU. Such organizations that seek to unify large parts of the world are seen as forerunners of the global government the [[Anti-Christ]] will establish.

==Candidates for membership==

There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Croatia]] and [[The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]. Typically a country that is considered will have to make some economic or social changes to bring it in line with other member states.

There is some conflict between current EU member states over possible candidates for membership. For example, The United Kingdom is in favor of adding Turkey to the EU, while France is strongly against Turkey's possible membership.

Here is a map of the European Union as of January 2007, including countries seeking to join: [[Image:European_Union.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Member states of the European Union.]]

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) [http://europa.eu/]

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]

European Union

2007-05-23T01:35:26Z

Tehstone:

[[Image:567rugyhj.png|right|thumb|300px|Flag of the European Union.]]
The '''European Union (EU)''' is a legal and economic union of 27 [[Europe|European]] nations. It was formed in 1993 with the ratification of the [[Maastricht Treaty]], though its predecessor, the European Economic Community, was founded in 1957.

As an institution, the EU has more powers over its member states and their citizens than is the case with most international bodies; 13 of its member states also use a common [[currency]], the [[Euro]]. It is not, however, generally regarded as a federation or state in its own right. Rather, it stands somewhere between these two points.

==Structure==

The EU, technically speaking, consists of three separate "pillars" - the '''European Communities''', the '''Common Foreign and Security Policy''', and '''Police and Judicial Co-Operation in Criminal Matters'''. The most important of these "pillars" is the European Communities, and the term "European Union" is often used as a synonym for the European Communities.

The EU is governed primarily by three institutions: the '''Council''', the '''European Commission''' and the '''European Parliament'''.

The Council consists of representatives of each member state. These representatives change depending on what the purpose of the Council's meeting is and what is being discussed (for example, the ministers of finance of each country may attend a meeting on fiscal policy).

The Commission functions roughly as the EU's executive branch. It consists of 27 Commissioners, one nominated by each member state, though on taking office the Commissioners are required to put aside their allegiance to their own countries and to act in the interests of the EU as a whole. The President of the Commission acts to some extent as a figurehead for the EU, and is the nearest thing there is to a "President of Europe". The current Commission President is [[José Manuel Barroso]], a conservative and a former Prime Minister of Portugal. Perhaps the best known Commission President was [[Jacques Delors]] (1985-1995), a French socialist who passionately favoured European integration. A personal enemy of Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]], he was famously attacked by the conservative British tabloid newspaper ''The Sun'' with the slogan "Up yours, Delors".

The European Parliament consists of 785 members directly elected by the citizens of the member states. National parties sit in broad Europe-wide groupings: for example, most members of left-wing parties sit together as the "Party of European Socialists". No party grouping currently has an overall majority, but the main conservative grouping (the European People's Party) currently has the largest number of seats (277).

The EU has its own judicial apparatus, consisting most notably of the '''Court of First Instance''' and the '''European Court of Justice''', the latter being the supreme judicial authority of the Union. It should not be confused with the [[European Court of Human Rights]], which is entirely separate from the EU and its institutions.

==Sovereignty==

The member states of the European Union fall under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Similar to Federal Law trumping State Law in United States politics, the EU member states are obligated to follow the laws set forth by the European Court of Justice. This system of government takes sovereignty from the nation, and rests it in the EU court of Justice. Some political theorists argue that the EU is thus the death of the Nation. By the rules of The Treaty of Westphalia, nations are defined by their rite of Self-Sovereignty.

==Criticism==

A significant number of Europeans on the political right of centre are opposed to the EU on the grounds that it undermines national sovereignty and identity. Such people are known in British English as "Eurosceptics", and they include such people as the former British Prime Minister [[Margaret Thatcher]] (although, while in power, she committed Britain to the 1986 [[Single European Act]], a major integrationist measure) and the members of the [[UK Independence Party]]. They also, however, include less well-respected right-wing politicians belonging to far right or [[nationalism|nationalist]] parties, such as France's [[Jean-Marie Le Pen]]. There are also extreme left-wing opponents of the European Union, such as ''Die Linke'' in Germany, who regard it as constituting an anti-progressive "Fortress Europe", and claim that EU membership impedes countries from following socialist policies.

Additionally, many proponents of Rapture Theology believe that the Anti-Christ will be a product of the EU. Such organizations that seek to unify large parts of the world are seen as forerunners of the global government the Anti-Christ will establish.

==Candidates for membership==

There are three official candidates being considered for membership, [[Turkey]], [[Croatia]] and [[The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia]]. Typically a country that is considered will have to make some economic or social changes to bring it in line with other member states.

There is some conflict between current EU member states over possible candidates for membership. For example, The United Kingdom is in favor of adding Turkey to the EU, while France is strongly against Turkey's possible membership.

Here is a map of the European Union as of January 2007, including countries seeking to join: [[Image:European_Union.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Member states of the European Union.]]

Gateway to the European Union (EU official website) [http://europa.eu/]

[[Category:Europe]]
[[category:politics]]