Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

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

2007-05-14T14:40:20Z

The vigilante: /* Conservative */

{{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)
::::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. --[[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)

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

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

2007-05-14T14:39:44Z

The vigilante: /* Conservative */

{{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?!
:* 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)
::::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. --[[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)

== It depends ==
Are we talking about [http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm Jesus, or Jeezus?] --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 21:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==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/>

Rush (band)

2007-05-14T14:36:37Z

The vigilante:

The Canadian band Rush is a progressive rock band who's members are Neil Peart, Geddy Lee, and Alex Lifeson. The lyricist and drummer Neil Peart's lyrics are based on the objectivism philosophy of Ayn Rand. The band swelling popularity is growing, as they years go on, and they have recently released a new album, called "Snakes And Arrows." They go on tour this summer.--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 10:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Michael Savage

2007-05-01T19:21:31Z

The vigilante:

[[Image:Michaelsavage.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Alan Weiner''', Ph.D. (born March 31, 1942) (aka '''Michael Savage''') is a [[conservative]] talk show host. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Savage SourceWatch</ref>

His nationally-syndicated radio show is called "Savage Nation". He holds a Ph.D. in [[economics]] and [[medicinal botany]]

He is famous for making what some characterize as "inflammatory" statements. In 2003, Savage was fired from MSNBC, after telling a [[homosexual]] caller "I hope you get [[AIDS]] and die, you pig."<ref>USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-07-talk-host-fired_x.htm</ref>

He has recently won the freedom of speech award and is contemplating running for president in '08

=== References ===

<references />

[[Category:Broadcasters|Weiner, Michael Alan]]

Michael Savage

2007-05-01T19:20:31Z

The vigilante:

[[Image:Michaelsavage.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Alan Weiner''', Ph.D. (born March 31, 1942) (aka '''Michael Savage''') is a [[conservative]] talk show host. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Savage SourceWatch</ref>

His nationally-syndicated radio show is called "Savage Nation". He holds a Ph.D. in [[economics]] and [[Botany]]

He is famous for making what some characterize as "inflammatory" statements. In 2003, Savage was fired from MSNBC, after telling a [[homosexual]] caller "I hope you get [[AIDS]] and die, you pig."<ref>USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-07-talk-host-fired_x.htm</ref>

He has recently won the freedom of speech award and is contemplating running for president in '08

=== References ===

<references />

[[Category:Broadcasters|Weiner, Michael Alan]]

Michael Savage

2007-05-01T19:20:20Z

The vigilante:

[[Image:Michaelsavage.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Michael Alan Weiner''', Ph.D. (born March 31, 1942) (aka '''Michael Savage''') is a [[conservative]] talk show host. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Savage SourceWatch</ref>

His nationally-syndicated radio show is called "Savage Nation". He holds a Ph.D. in [[economics]]and [[Botany]]

He is famous for making what some characterize as "inflammatory" statements. In 2003, Savage was fired from MSNBC, after telling a [[homosexual]] caller "I hope you get [[AIDS]] and die, you pig."<ref>USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-07-talk-host-fired_x.htm</ref>

He has recently won the freedom of speech award and is contemplating running for president in '08

=== References ===

<references />

[[Category:Broadcasters|Weiner, Michael Alan]]

Rush (band)

2007-05-01T19:18:40Z

The vigilante:

Rush (band)

2007-05-01T19:18:22Z

The vigilante:

The canadian band Rush is a progressive rock band who's members are Neil Peart, Geddy Lee, and Alex Lifeson. The lyricist and drummer Neil Peart's lyrics are based on the objectivism philosophy of Ayn Rand. The band swelling popularity is growing, as they years go on, and they have recently released a new album, their 18th, called "Snakes And Arrows." They go on tour this summer.[[Image:http://images.googlee.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.metalperspective.com/rog/images/band.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.metalperspective.com/rog/rush.php&h=359&w=432&sz=34&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=wgwnxwGJNOjTqM:&tbnh=105&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drush%2Bband%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG]]

Rush (band)

2007-05-01T19:16:08Z

The vigilante: New page: The canadian band Rush is a progressive rock band who's members are Neil Peart, Geddy Lee, and Alex Lifeson. The lyricist and drummer Neil Peart's lyrics are based on the objectivism philo...

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-04-23T18:38:03Z

The vigilante: /* No */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-04-23T18:35:38Z

The vigilante: /* No */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Debate:Define torture

2007-04-23T18:33:33Z

The vigilante: /* What is Torture */

Torture needs defining because liberals have blurred the true meaning. Is torture to stand on one foot with a black hood over your head? Maybe it is when you cut a persons fingers off. Is torture a degrading naked pyramid of men? Or maybe it is hammering nails into someones skull. Is torture having a scary dog bark at your face? Maybe it is beating your face silly with brass knuckles. Is torture three square meals a day, tropical skies, a free Koran? Or maybe it is locked in a cold dungeon, no light, starving to death. Help, the issue is so distorted. [[User talk:Jpatt|Jpatt]]

Torture is any cruel or unusual punishment, forbidden by the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the highest law of our Republic, assuming we still have a Republic. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 03:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: So to call you a bad name, that is torture?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thee square meals a day, tropical skies and a free Koran? You make prison sound like club med. Answer honestly, who was treated worse: enemy combatants and terrorists held by US forces in Abu Graib, or innocent British sailors captured by the Iranians?

There is no real line where you can say 'interregation stops here, then torture begins.' Horrible things go on in American prisons, but no one raises holy hell. The fact of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a moral nation, based on individual rights and liberty. When the world hears we stick people in jail without trial and use techniques like water boarding...well, how are we any better than those we are trying to fight in their eyes? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I am not comparing prison to club med. I am comparing torture situations. Another America basher comments, way to Golz.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.''[http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1]
:Well its a start...
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

How do '''''you''''' suggest that we get information, Ask nicely?

::That might not work ... on the other hand there are aparrently people trained in non-torturous interrogation who do know how to get information out of people. Their success rate is quite high and the information is usually of good quality. Under torture people are likely to admit to anything. One never knows if the information acquired is any good or not. Then again ... if you just like being cruel to people...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::like what? truth serum?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind. Just carry on recruiting terrorists.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I think that only American citizens should be protected by the constitution (even the 8th ammendment). We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and because we are the ones who will eventually win. I don't think that we should use anything that I personally would define as torture (sticking splinters up their fingernails, skining and salting them, etc.) but we could definately be doing alot better to persuade them to confess. I suggest that we:

# Regularly starve them for a week or so; nothing life threatening but we don't want them to get comfortable.
# when we ''do'' feed them it should be nothing very good.
# Put them in solitary confinment; we might do this already but I wouldn't know.
# We can certainly ''pretend'' that we're going to do something cruel. I suggest we have somebody realy good at special effects make a video to show them of some horrible torture method. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am all for that benjamin, but to the left, everything you mention is cruel and unusual punishment, a.k.a torture. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*my definition of torture: techniques that cause irreversible physical or psychological damage. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You know torure is not an effective means of getting accurate information, right? And you do know that the best way to get accurate information is, in fact, to be nice to them. It's like good cop bad cop, but they're already in prison so you don't even need a bad cop. Just the good cop.

:And Benjamin, while your ethnocentrism is to be applauded on this site, our various governmental documents don't make any allowance for all men to be created equal and certain unalienable rights... except then not so much for people that are different. And you say that "we are better than the terrorists because they attacked us." Well... how exactly do you know that the man you have in custody is a terrorist or was responsible for attacking us? So you're going to detain a man, deprive him of food on ''suspicion'' of being a terrorist? Well guess what: you can never let this man out because when you do, he's going to be a terrorist. And regardless of whether you let him out, his friends and brothers will be terrorists. And "they will be better than us because they wrongfully imprisoned my brother."

I thought we were discussing the ones that we ''know'' are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe we should abide by the laws we write and the treaties we sign, hm? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't know that we signed any treaties with radical islam. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::that'll probably require one-on-one therapy session with a psychologist over a 2 year treatment, ha ha ha. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: maybe the terrorists will abide by international law, hmmm--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Torture is also defined in the Geneva Convention. The fuzzy area is who the Convention covers, that's the real line that's been blurred.
And to Jpatt's original comment, the liberals didn't blur the line of what's torture, that's totally up to interpertation. Same as hazing laws in the US, they're vaguely worded to allow the legal system greater leeway in prosecuting and protecting rights. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

When liberals accuse the USA of torture, it is defintely been blurred because a slow painful death to me is torture, not inprisonment by America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: If countries like the UK and US practise torture, then haven't we given up a bit of what makes us better than terrorists? JPatt's comment is a perfect example of the childish view of international affairs that has caused this problem - 'cause they're breaking international law, we can too! Cheney, get me those thumbscrews now!' You can't fight fire with fire. Torture just recruits terrorists - as was shown when Aussaresses justified torture in Algeria. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

: To fight fire with fire or torture with torture, is just fubar. My point which is too complicated for Wiki, I was not asking for vague law interpretation, which one side doesn't adhere to and the other side blames it's leaders for breaking. It is a matter of treatment, suffering, unspeakable human behavior. Defining torture to seperate what is and what is not political fodder to accuse and point fingers. Calling you the name FAT, if overweight is cruel. Does it fit as torture? Black hooded standing on one foot, does it fit as torture? If you hate America, yes it does mean torture. I say hell no as I outlined what torture really is above.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: One other point I forgot to respond to. Torture recruits terrorists? Who was the US torturing when the WTC was attacked? I guess they were recruited before 9/11, when we were so comfy safe at home. It's the same method of operation liberals use to discredit why we are in Iraq, just recruits terrorists. Except, they were attacking us well before we occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they were attacking us because no response after the USS Cole was bombed embolden them to do more harm. 2000 plus days after taking the fight to them, the homeland hasn't suffered.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Wuh? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: 'Wow! Because we're us, anything we do must be right!' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/moral-equivalence/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: 'They're worse than us; they've got to be, because they're not us!' Kerching, next. We should really get closer to the topic, though this is fun. :) [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::::'They are not us, so they have no moral' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

My litmus test: if The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we
call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/T0283300.html American Heritage]

:1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
:2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
:3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture Merriam-Webster]

:I'm waiting with considerable interest to see just what language Bush and Blair come up with to describe the treatment of the captured British sailors by the Iranians. I nominate [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/ "torture lite"] as the ugliest phrase to emerge in the last ten years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::If you include "anguish of body or mind" in your definition of torture, then every criminal locked in jail in America is being tortured.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::'''My''' definition of torture? No, please, ''the dictionary's'' definition of torture. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::doesn't matter, do you support freeing all criminals in jail? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Do you support distortion of overrefinement of a meaning or an argument? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Even if I don't, lawyers will.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
"We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and '''because we are the ones who will eventually win.'''"
Benjamin, did you not criticize another user in the discussion on morality for allegedly saying that might makes right?--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, now that we've settled that, how about [[Debate:Define terrorism]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

''I thought we were discussing the ones that we know are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --BenjaminS 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)''
Ah, "Innocent 'til Proven Guilty" is for wusses, eh?
You _are_ aware that some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have had to be released after several '''years''' of imprisonment, right? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3501910.stm] Since the US Government generally (I hope) isn't in the habit of locking people up just for the fun of it, I think it's safe to assume that someone THOUGHT they 'knew' these guys were Terrorists, and turned out to be wrong.
It's hilarious to see members of the Small Government Party arguing for the infallability and unwavering righteousness of a bunch of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats with GUNS, but bureaucrats nonetheless. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

And for the 'definition of torture', why not break out the ol' Ouija board and ask some of the Suspected Terrorists who died under the tender care of Lynndie England, She-Wolf of the US? I suspect they'd have a few choice words on the subject. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Lynndie England wasn't so bad, she just mocked some guy's genital.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I guess that one guy whose corpse she was photographed grinning over just died of embarrassment? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Like you've never grinned during a funneral.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I can say without hesitation that I've never stood over the coffin at a funeral, grinned at the camera, and given a thumbs up. And I can say with even more certainty that I've never stood over the dead body of murder victim and done it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

"If The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not."
Wise words WJThomas, wise words.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Multiple definitions:
*Torture is painful or humilating treatment used to punish or coerce.
*Torture (as defined in law or treaty): such treatment which the goverment agrees to refrain from doing

Shining bright lights in a suspect's eyes to make him talk can be considered "torture", but most people have in mind things like cutting a man's ears or nuts off. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As a family member of a survivor of torture at the hands of the government of Argentina, I am saddened that Americans would even suggest some of the things you have been speaking of. Untill you have looked first-hand at the results of prolonged torture sessions, do not be so hasty to condem another human being to it.

::What's sad is that at one time, "most people" understood that torture involves far more sophisticated methods than simply maiming someone. Bright lights, sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual humiliation, all were methods of torture widely understood to be torture back in the 60s and 70s, when both living memories of the Second World War and the publication of THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO were there to remind us. Ever read Solzhenitsyn's chapter on torture?

::Today there seems to be a concerted movement online to redefine the word "torture" to the point where it's meaningless. Apparently, if you want to countenance torture, but just can't get around that visceral reaction most decent people have to the word "torture," the next step is to just change common usage of the word -- right Ed? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==What is Torture==
I think when considering this discussion, one should acept that there are different threshholds, and different responses to pain.If any of you take the time to look at the Al Qaeda handbook, part of the evidence used in a trial in NY in 2003, I believe, you'll see they train their people to spill the beans at the first threat of physical abuse. The first fingernail you pull out, they are expected to scream bloody murder. In this way, we are led to believe we are getting true information. Sadly, this will almost always not be the case.

Further, remember that when you condemn these people to be tortured, you also condemn our soldiers to be tortured by them. So, at the risk of sounding like Bill O'Reilly, why do you hate the troops? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::most information from confession can be verified for authenticity, and Al Qaeda usually just cut off soldiers' head without bothring to torture them.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not resorting to torture is one of the things that separate free countries from dictatorships.
Torture is also very inefficient: untrained prisoners will confess to anything to make the pain go away while trained prisoners will simply lie, or not talk at all.

Also consider what this was originally about: a war on terror.
If one side wants to claim moral superiority it has to stick with the Geneva conventions, no matter how cruel their enemies are.
If both sides practice the same ethics, neither side can claim to be morally superior: the war would be nothing more than a struggle for territory and resources.

If the United States were one of these two sides, its government would have a hard time explaining why the war is necessary and why it's not imperialism, to its own citizens as well as potential allies.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

putting underwear on someones head is not torture. cutting someones head off w/ a dull, rusty blade is torture. So is slapping them with a wet codfish. or a wet cod PIECE. now THAT is torture. duh.
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Define torture

2007-04-23T18:32:59Z

The vigilante: /* What is Torture */